Elizabeth (Emmy) Markgraf

Lab Report #2
November 5th, 2019
I. Introduction
In this lab the law of conservation of momentum was investigated using an elastic
collision between two carts on a track. We investigated this law by designing an experiment that
calculated the inertia ratio’s impact on ratio of velocities. In order for this law to be upheld, it
needed to show that overall momentum in our system (defined as the two carts and the track)
didn’t change. The law of conservation of momentum formula is shown below:
p 1i + p 2i = p 1f + p 2f where p is the momentum of a cart
When the ratio of inertias of two carts on a track is varied, the ratio of their velocities
should be equal to their respective ratio of inertias. The ratio of velocities should correspond to
those ratio of velocities calculated by either Student 1 or Student 2. Student 1 and Student 2’s
hypotheses are summed up in mathematical terms below:
v 2i −v 1i
S tudent #1 Hypothesis = where v 1i = cart 1′s initial velocity
v 2f −v 1f
v 2f −v 2i v 2i = cart 2′s initial velocity
S tudent #2 Hypothesis = v 1f −v 1i v 1f = cart 1′s f inal velocity
v 2f = cart 2′s f inal velocity

II. Data Analysis

For this experiment we separated it into 3 different blocks. For each block we changed
the inertia ratio of the carts by increasing the mass of the first cart. This resulted in a Block #1
having an inertia ratio of 1.039, Block #2 having an inertia ratio of 2.035, and Block #3 having
an inertia ratio of 3.032. To calculate the inertia ratio we used the formula:
inertia ratio = inertia of cart 2
inertia of cart 1
For each block we took 4 trials, varying the initial velocity. We then calculated the average
initial and final velocities for carts 1 and 2. Then using the average velocities we calculated the
velocity ratios according to Student 1 and Student 2’s hypothesis. The following table
summarizes the Student’s hypothesis for each of the three blocks.

Block # (Inertia Ratio) Student #1 Hypothesis Student #2 Hypothesis

1 (1.039) 1.21 .92

2 (2.035) 1.08 1.58

3 (3.032) 1.08 2.14

Using this data we graphed it with the title, Ratio of Velocities According to Student 1
and 2 by Inertia Ratio. Our independent variable was the inertia ratio which we controlled by
adding more mass onto cart 1, and our dependent variable was the ratio of velocities calculated
 Elizabeth (Emmy) Markgraf
Lab Report #2
November 5th, 2019
using the formulas from Students 1 and 2 above. The graph showed that as the mass ratio
increased, the ratio calculated using Student 1’s hypothesis stayed relatively flat, while the ratio
calculated using Student 2’s hypothesis increased a strong, linear association. Student 2’s
calculations follows the trend as the ratio of inertias increases, so should the ratio of velocities.
While, Student 2’s calculation don’t follow the ratio increases with a 1:1 ratio, they are
significantly more accurate than Student 2’s which remained flat with no increases.
To find the random uncertainty for each v 1i , v 2i , v 1f , v 2f value we calculated the value
between the respective average velocity and each trial velocity. We then found maximum
random uncertainty for each v 1i , v 2i , v 1f , v 2f and used those values to calculate percent
uncertainty of velocity for each of the four velocities with the formula:
v elocity percent uncertainty = maxaverage
random uncertainty
velocity
Our percent uncertainties for Block #1 ranged from 0% to 189%, for Block #2 ranged
from 0% to 93%, and for Block #3 ranged from 0% to 76%. For all three blocks the weakest link
was cart 1’s initial final velocity with the highest percent uncertainty for all three of the blocks.
In order to get the uncertainty in our calculated value (ie. the velocity ratio of Student 1 or 2) we
used the following formula:
uncertainty in calculated value = max percent uncertainty · calculated value
We then plotted the calculated uncertainty as vertical error bars on our graph. The
horizontal error bars consisted of the instrumental uncertainty of mass (.05g) which was simply
contained within the data point.
Overall, our largest source of error was the relative uncertainty/percent uncertainty of cart
1’s initial velocity. This could be due to the errors in Capstone accurately capturing the final
velocity of the cart, or due to friction between the cart and the track.

III. Conclusion
Experimentally our data supports Student 2’s hypothesis that in that the ratio of velocities
is equal to the difference in one cart’s initial and final velocities and the other’s difference in
initial and final velocities. Our data disproves Student 1’s hypothesis that the ratio of velocities
equals to the difference in the two cart’s initial velocities and the difference in the two cart’s
final velocities. As we mentioned in the introduction, this lab aimed at investigating the
conservation of momentum. Student 2’s hypothesis can be shown with the following proof which
follows the conservation of momentum between two carts and an elastic collision.
p 1i + p 2i = p 1f + p 2f
m 1 v 1i + m 2 v 2i = m 1 v 1f + m 2 v 2f
m 1 v 1i − m 1 v 1f = m 2 v 2f − m 2 v 2i
m 1 (v 1i − v 1f ) = m 2 (v 2f − v 2i )
 Elizabeth (Emmy) Markgraf
Lab Report #2
November 5th, 2019
m1 v 2f −v 2i
m2
= v 1i −v 1f
m1 v 2f −v 2i
m2
=− v 1f −v 1i

While this shows Student 2’s hypothesis mathematically, experimentally our data also
supports Student 2’s hypothesis. We found that as our ratio of inertias increased from 1.039 to
2.035, and to 3.035, the ratio of velocities calculated using Student 2’s reasoning also increased
from .92, to 1.58, and to 2.14. Meanwhile the ratio of velocities calculated using Student 1’s
reasoning stayed flat with no increases, thus disproving their hypothesis.
Through this experiment, we learned the experimental application of the law of
conservation of momentum. Theoretically, the law of conservation of momentum should have
resulted in exactly equal ratios of inertia and differences in velocity. However, our experiment
clearly showed a difference between the ratio of inertias and velocity. This is important to note
as it shows the difficulty in achieving a perfectly elastic collision and conservation of momentum
in an experimental setting. We can use this information for designing further experiments that
focus on minimizing the difference through less friction and human interaction with the carts.
We can also use our conclusion that Student 2’s hypothesis was correct to investigate the concept
of friction and its impact on the conservation of momentum.
While Student 2’s ratio did follow a linear trendline, there was a large percentage of error
for all data points. This is due to several shortcomings in the design of the experiment. When we
were pushing cart 1 towards cart 2 it was difficult to maintain a constant velocity, causing the
cart to either accelerate or decelerate as it approached cart 2. Had there been a more mechanized
way of ensuring initial velocity, our results would have been more accurate as velocity would
have been closer to being constant. In addition, there was friction between the cart’s wheels and
the track which caused energy to be dissipated ( ΔK =/ 0 ) and prevented the collision from
being a perfectly elastic collision where ΔK = 0 . This small change in energy (converted from
kinetic to internal) prevented the carts maintaining conservation of momentum, as the final
kinetic energy was reduced and thus final velocity. For next time, having a method/mechanism
for having a constant initial velocity will help to ensure a more final velocity. And lastly, using
an air track would help keep friction to a minimum and prevent energy from being dissipated
into the track.