Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Phuc Pham

Partner: Wei Wen, Marina


Projectile Lab
Physics 231 October 30th 2014

For this lab, the initial velocity was determined by 5 methods and the results compared to determine if
there was a statistically significant difference between them. This is a test of whether or not the
difference in horizontal motion effects on the vertical motion. We use d_x= v0_x*t and h=
v0_y+1/2*a_y*t2 formulas to find the initial velocity. We also check experiments result by using
photogate.

Method A: Horizontal Projectile Method


Procedure:
1. For this method, the projectile was set up on a table with h (compared to floor). The launcher
should be level because this experiment use horizontal formula to calculate initial velocity.
Protractor is used to adjust the level (should be 0 degree). Then the diameter of the ball is
measured by caliper to the nearest 0.1mm
2. The ball is pushed the second click position and fired horizontally so that the ball hits the floor.
Where the ball hits the floor, a piece of carbon paper is placed face down on a piece of white
paper which is taped to the floor so that the ball will leave a carbon mark indicating its landing
position.
3. Photogate is placed in front of launch point.
4. With the carbon paper in position, the ball is shoot horizontally onto the carbon paper five
times. The landing distances and times the ball passes photogate are record.

Calculation:
Vertical motion:
h= v0_y+1/2gt2
h=1/2gt2 ( because v0_y=0)
t=
(1)
Horizontal motion:
D= v0_xt
D= v0t ( because v0= v0_x)
v0=D/t (2)
From (1) and (2) we have:
v0=D/

Sample:
v0=1.928m/

Method A data and results:


Trial
D(m)
t(s)
photogate
v0 (m/s)
photogate
v0 (m/s)
calculated

1
1.928
0.0036

2
1.914
0.0036

3
1.93
0.0035

4
1.918
0.0036

5
1.916
0.0035

average
1.9212
0.00356

Stnd. Dev.
0.007294
0.00005

4.33

4.33

4.45

4.33

4.45

4.378

0.0657

4.28931

4.258164

4.29376

4.267063

4.262613

4.274182

0.016227

Method B: A 30 launch angle


Procedure:
1. The protractor is used to adjust the launcher up to 30 degree launch angle. The launcher is
place on a stool or lab-jack lower than the table so that the launch point is level to the table. The
ball is pushed into second click positon
2. Carbon paper is placed on white paper at the balls landing position.
3. Photogate is place in front of launch point
4. The ball is shoot in 30 degree five times onto carbon paper. The landing distances and times the
ball passes photogate are recorded.

Calculation:
Consider horizontal motion:
R=v0_xt
R= v0cos(30deg)t
t=R/(v0cos(30deg)) (1)
Consider vertical motion
vs_y=v0_y-gt
-v0_y=v0_y-gt
-v0sin(30deg)=v0sin(30deg)-9.8(m/s2)t (2)
Combine equation (1) and (2):

v0=9.8(m/s2)R/(2sin30cos30)
Sample:
v0=(9.8 m/s2)1.457m/(

=4.06m/s

Method B data and results:


Trial #
R (m)
t (s)
photogate
v0 (m/s)
photogate
v0 (m/s0)
calculated

1
1.457
0.0038

2
1.458
0.0038

3
1.453
0.0037

4
1.463
0.0038

5
1.461
0.0037

average
1.4584
0.00376

Stand dev
0.003847
0.000054

4.105

4.105

4.216

4.105

4.216

4.149

0.061

4.060481

4.061874

4.054904

4.068833

4.066051

4.062429

0.005359

Method C 45
Procedure: Repeat all of method B using a launch angle of 45.
Calculations:
Consider horizontal motion:
R=v0_xt
R=v0cos(45deg)t
t=R/(v0cos(45deg)) (1)
Consider vertical motion
v_y=v0_y-gt
-v0_y=v0_y-gt

( because at landing position v_y=-v0_y )

-v0sin(45deg)=v0sin(45deg)-9.8(m/s2)t (2)
Combine equation (1) and (2):
v0=9.8(m/s2)R/(2sin45cos45)

Method C data and results:


Trial #
R (m)
t (s)
photogate
v0 (m/s)
photogate
v0 (m/s)
calculated

1
1.693
0.0037

2
1.678
0.0036

3
1.686
0.0037

4
1.692
0.0036

5
1.686
0.0036

average
1.687
0.00364

Stand dev
0.006
0.000055

4.22

4.33

4.22

4.33

4.33

4.28

0.006

4.073254

4.05517

4.064825

4.072051

4.064825

4.066025

0.007234

Method D 60:
Procedure: Repeat all of method B using a launch angle of 60.
Calculations:
Consider horizontal motion:
R=v0_xt
R=v0cos(60deg)t
t=R/(v0cos(60deg)) (1)
Consider vertical motion
v_y=v0_y-gt
-v0_y=v0_y-gt

( because at landing position v_y=- v0_y )

-v0sin(60deg)=v0sin(60deg)-9.8(m/s2)t (2)
Combine equation (1) and (2):
v0=9.8(m/s2)R/(2sin60cos60)

Method D data and results:


Trial #
R (m)
t (s)
photogate
v0 (m/s)
photogate
v0 (m/s0)
calculated

1
1.495
0.0036

2
1.497
0.0036

3
1.501
0.0036

4
1.505
0.0035

5
1.507
0.0036

Average
1.501
0.00358

Stand dev
0.0051
0.000044

4.33

4.33

4.33

4.46

4.33

4.356

0.058

4.113091

4.115841

4.121336

4.126824

4.129565

4.121332

0.007

Method E: Vertical launch


Procedure:
1. The launcher is set on the floor, and from the two click position the ball is launched straight up
(protractor set to 90 degrees)
2. A meter stick is held vertically next to the trajectory to measure the maximum vertical height
that the ball reaches above its launch position
3. The photogate is placed in front of launcher
4. For 5 trials, two people in my group look at maximum heights of the ball in different angles and
record data

Calculations:
Because this vertical motion, we dont consider horizontal motion:
Vtop2 v02=-2gh
0 v02=-2gh (vtop=0m/s)
v0=
Sample:
v0=

=3.999m/s

Method E data and results:


Trial #
h (m)
person 1
h (m)
person 2
v0 (m/s)
person 1
v0 (m/s)
person 2
t (s)
photogate
v0 (m/s)
photogate

1
0.816

2
0.818

3
0.818

4
0.823

5
0.827

Average
0.8292

Stand dev
0.0176

0.817

0.820

0.820

0.825

0.830

0.8224

0.005128

3.9992

4.004098

4.004098

4.016317

4.026065

4.009956

0.011003

4.00165

4.00899

4.00899

4.021194

4.033361

4.014837

0.012508

0.0039

0.0038

0.0038

0.0038

0.0038

0.00382

0.000045

4.000

4.105

4.105

4.105

4.105

4.084

0.047

Analysis
4.5

4.4

4.3

4.2

4.1

3.9

3.8
A

Question

E1

E2

Ap

Bp

Cp

Dp

Ep

E2
Ap
Bp
Cp
Dp
Ep

E1

C
D

E1

E2

Ap

Bp

Cp

Dp

Ep

27.7077837 26.198847 19.3398848 30.1354784 28.3046433 3.4086239 3.32180127 -1.1088132


-2.9368246 20.65324881
0.8932549 -14.940135 9.58698777 7.8203809 10.532941
-3.196671 -7.7831245 -11.8848484
-1.0279994
-12.285659 9.52116641 7.92150458 10.388263 -3.0551875 -7.6364802 -11.6957643
-0.8537984
19.0965852 16.6130499 -8.577932 -1.0349137 -5.7230106 -9.48609208 1.744076661
-0.6551932 12.137285 -5.0575763 -9.5005977 -13.7898334 -3.43454009
11.933755 -4.8583594 -9.2941552 -13.5216231 -3.18474418
5.72680695 2.30851062 0.632455532 8.089450854
-3.4628371 -5.66956299 1.903363181
-1.8895925 5.684514566
8.426762286

[1] Calculated launched velocity differs significantly from the velocities determined from photogate
data. Each graphs of calculated velocities and photogate velocities has one velocity lies outside error
bars.
[2] The velocities determined from the photogate date depend on the projection angle, because the Vo
(photogate) are different in different angles. The calculated velocity from the vertical launch is different
than the velocity calculated from the horizontal launch because Ffinal=Flaucher-Wsin. When the angle
increases, the Ffinal decreases, so the velocity decreases.
[3] The velocities calculated from motion data are consistently smaller than the photogate data. I think
the reason is the air resistance reduces the velocity of the ball when it in the air. The air resistance is
reasonable because when the ball is just launched from the launcher, we record the time, when there is
not much air resistance acts on the ball, it passes. But during the time the ball moves in the air, the air
resistance reduces the velocity of the ball, so the actual Vo is less than theoretical Vo.
[4] The average launch velocity calculated from method A is greater than from that calculated by
method E1 and E2. Evidence from the graph is average velocity of method A is higher than that of
method E1 and E2. Evidence from t-test table is the t-test scores of method A vs method E1 and method
A vs method E2 are positive numbers, which means average V of method A is greater than that of
method E1 and E2.
The reason is Ffinal=Flaucher-Wsin. When the angle increases, the Ffinal decreases, so the launch velocity
decreases. Therefore, the average launch velocity from method A is greater than that from method E.
[5] The average launch velocities calculated are different between method E1 and E2. Evidence from
graph is the points are different between method E1 and E2. Evidence from is t-test table is that t-test
score of method E1 and E2 is not 1.
It implies that each observers has different record for data. Therefore, the more observers, the more
variability of the method is.
[6]

pool=

=0.001176

[7] The t-test score between method E1 and method E2 is -0.6551932. By comparing to t-test table, the
average launch velocities from method E1 and method E2 are not statistically different with 95%
confidence.
[8] According to the appendix table, the average launch velocities calculated from two methods are
significantly different in 95% confidence if t-test score is greater than 1.86. Therefore, there are only A
vs Cp, B vs C, B vs Ep, C vs Ep, D vs Bp, D vs Ep, E1 vs E2, and Ap vs Dp.
[9] According to the appendix table, the average launch velocities calculated from two methods are
significantly different in 95% confidence (degree of freedom is 8) if t-test score is greater than 1.86. The
t-test score between A and E1 is 30.134. The t-test score between A and E2 is 28.3. Therefore, the
average launch velocity calculated from method A statistically different from that calculated by method
E1 and E2. The reason is as I answered in question [4]

Other questions:
[10] 30 degrees of projection angle gave me the maximum horizontal range: 1.921 m
[11] Let consider angle 30 degrees and 60 degrees. Because I dont have 90% confidence level in
appendix table, I will do solve this question in 95% confidence.
The t-test score of average launch velocities of these methods is -0.89 which is within -1.89 and 1.89.
Therefore, average velocities of these method is not statistically different. By calculation, the t-test score
of horizontal ranges between method B and C is 1.019 which is less than 1.86, so the horizontal ranges
between method B and C is not statistically different. Therefore, data from 30 degrees and 60 degrees
agree with this statement.
But data from 0 degree and 90 degree dont agree with this statement.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen