Jenni Zackeo

5/29/18
B2

Toy Lab
There were two main purposes in this experiment, to determine the launch velocity and
spring constant. The first value established was the launch velocity. In order to do this the toy
was launched against a meter stick several times and and an average was found. From this it
would have been possible to find the gravitational potential energy using the formula GPE=mgh,
but this was not necessary. GPE is equal to kinetic energy ( KE = (½)mv^2) so the two equations
were able to be set equivalent and “m” was cancelled out. From there it was possible to easily
solve for “v” the launch velocity using simple algebra skills.
The second goal of the lab was to find the spring constant (k) of the toy. Already having
the launch velocity this was extremely simple. GPE is also equivalent to elastic potential energy
(EPE = (1/2)kx^20) . This meant the previous quantities could be plugged into the equations
once they were set to equal each other. The “m” value was previously measured on a scale and
“v” was found in the first procedure. After plugging in values “k” was fairly easy to determine
again using algebra skills.
Throughout the experiment several things were assumed. For example, the mass used was
found using a scale, this scale could have been misaligned or not have had the most accurate
result. Gravity was assumed to be 9.8m/s^2 and kept constant throughout the lab. Air resistance
was assumed to be negligible and lastly the popper was predicted to travel straight up and down.

Design:

Mathematical Procedure:
Jenni Zackeo
5/29/18
B2

Energy Bar Charts:

Jenni Zackeo
5/29/18
B2

Data:

Height of Popper Mass of Popper: .006kg

Trial 1 .62m

Trial 2 .63m

Trial 3 .66

Avg .64m

Calculations:
Jenni Zackeo
5/29/18
B2

Conclusion:

After completing the experiments the results are as followed: the launch velocity was
3.54 m/s^2 and a the spring constant was 445.35 N/m. Sadly, due to unforeseen circumstances
only one experiment was able to be performed making a percent error impossible to find. The
variables of the experiment, were fairly simplistic making the data to be quite valid. This being
said, error is always possible. It was extremely hard to determine the height of the popper even
as a slow motion camera was used. It is also possible that the meter stick was not held at a
consistent 90 degree angle to the lab table. Both of these incidents would change the height of
the popper and therefore affect the data. The popper also turned and spun as launched, this again
made it extremely difficult to keep where its peak was measured consistent. Lastly as the popper
was used it started to become deformed due to its malleable material. It is unknown if this
inconsistency had any effect on the data, but was noticed as the experiment was conducted. Both
of these indescrepencies could have had a negative effect on the calculations performed.