Stephanie+and+Aaron's+Accelerated+Motion

=Acceleration Motional Lab= October 27, 2009


 * Participants**: Aaron Locke, Stephanie Morse
 * Purpose**: The purpose of this lab is to determine the acceleration of a hover-puck traveling across a flat surface a free-falling 1 kg mass.

In this lab, my group used two objects, the hoverpuck and a 500 g mass, and taped it to a timer. This "tape timer" is used to place ink marks on a piece of paper every 1/60th of a second. Whatever is taped to the paper, pulls the paper forward, thus marking the paper with dots. These dots indicate the position of an object at each interval of 1/60 of a second. In our experiment, we first used a weight that was dropped from a height of about five meters, the weight pulled the tape through, making marks. We then repeated this with the hoverpuck. After completed, we measured the distance from the starting dot to every other dot. These measurements allowed us the information to find the acceleration of each object.
 * Brief Description of Experiment**:


 * Data**:


 * Sample Calculations:**

Velocity Graph Equations:

1 kg Mass Dropped: delta( change in position) /(1/60) Hover Puck: delta( change in position) /(1/60)

Position Over Time Graph: cm/sec

Percent difference: (your value - accepted value)/ your value * 100

speed = distance / time || The simple purpose of this lab was to use and determine acceleration of both a hoverpuck gliding across a flat surface, and the acceleration of a mass falling from a certain height. The acceleration of the mass falling was
 * //Speed calculation// || The speed in meters per second was calculated by taking the measured distance in meters and dividing by the time elapsed in seconds.
 * Results**:


 * Lab Questions**:
 * 1. Which objects that you studied were clearly accelerating? How can you tell by looking at the motion of the objects? How can you tell by looking at the position vs. time graph? How can you tell by looking at the velocity vs. time graph?**

It was clear that the mass that we dropped was accelerating. It began from not moving at all to moving quickly towards the ground, increasing in velocity slightly. This can be seen through the slope's constant increase on both graphs represented above.
 * 2. Which objects that you studied were not accelerating/ were accelerating slightly? How can you tell by looking at the motion of the objects? How can you tell by looking at the position vs. time graph? How can you tell by looking at the velocity vs. time graph?**

The hoverpuck, unlike the mass, did not accelerate enough to be significant. When it was pushed across the table, it seemed to move only at a slow, constant velocity. This is shown on the positition vs. time by the prescenece of a straight line, instead of a parabola which was shown in the mass's graph. On the other graph, velocity vs. time, is is represented through a straight line.


 * 3. What was the value of the acceleration of the 1 kg object? Can you find a relevant value to compare this to for a "free-falling object" near the surface of the earth? How do your values compare (% difference)? Follow-up: If you also did a 100 g object, what was the acceleration and how does this compare (% difference)?**


 * 4. What is meant by negative acceleration?**

Negative acceleration simple means that velocity is decreasing, or the object is going in a small distance that is related to time.

This experiment was succcessful in producing a result that is both valid and has the ability to be reproduced. The data my partner and I collected matches our previous knowledge of the relationships between time, velocity, position, and acceleration. As we know, as an object falls toward the earth it gains velocity and accelerates due to gravity. So the dropping of the mass experiment is quite reliable. On the other hand, the hoverpuck required a slight push, so it's information could be inaccurate because of the effect we had on force. Furthermore, it is very possible that a human error came while measuring the dots on the piece of paper. Many were light and hard to read, which could create a problem with the measuring process. We could even go as far to believe that maybe the timer was inconsistent and was not actually accurate in timing for 1/60th of a second.
 * Conclusion**:

//Don't forget to link to your lab report from the lab reports page and to include a link to your lab report in your reflection.//