PHY 231
Your 'energy conversion 1' report has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
** Your optional message or comment: **
** How far and through what angle did the block displace on a single trial, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of two dominoes? **
0, 0
The dominoes did not move after any release was made. I need to apply more force in order for it to move.
** 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of two dominoes: **
1cm
0.5cm
0.75cm
0.76cm
0.88cm
When I tried releasing the system, this time the dominoes moved very slightly(they did not move before, I was not using enough force or pulling it back enough)
** Rubber band lengths resulting in 5 cm, 10 cm and 15 cm slides: **
3.50cm, 4.12cm, 4.99cm
These numbers are how far I stretched the rubber band in order to get the dominoes to slide about 5cm, 10cm, and 15cm respectively. This is the accurate way for me to release the system, I was too careful before to avoid damaging the rubber band. It can be stretched more than I assumed.
These cannot be rubber band lengths in centimeters. The rubber band or longer than this even when they're not stretched out.
However the progression of relative lengths appears to be reasonable.
** 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of four dominoes: **
3.5cm
3.98cm
4.12cm
4.00cm
3.99cm
This is how far the dominoes moved. I had 4 dominoes so it took, because there was more mass to the system, it took more force(mass x acceleration) to move the rubber band. Also, this creates more noticable tension in the rubber band. I am careful not to damage it.
** 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of six dominoes: **
2.23cm
2.2cm
1.98cm
1.78cm
1.98cm
The dominoes barely move alone the paper because the tension in the rubber band is too great now. I can continue, but it might be permanently distorted if I use it the same way when there were 2 dominoes.
** 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of eight dominoes: **
1.5cm
1.3cm
1.25cm
1.20cm
1.56cm
The distance the dominoes travel are fewer and fewer since there is the same tension in the rubber band.
** 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of ten dominoes: **
0.99cm
0.88cm
0.89cm
0.93cm
0.77cm
The dominoes continue to cover less distance because of the amount of force necessary to cause more mass to move.
The mass of the domino block should not be changing. The number of dominoes specifies the tension, as it was in the rubber band calibration experiment.
Nevertheless you seem to have some good data. I can't tell for sure what it means, so I'm going to need you to explain how you determined the pullback distance, and how many dominoes were being accelerated in each case.
** Rubber band length, the number of dominoes supported at this length, the mean and the standard deviation of the sliding distance in cm, and the energy associated with the stretch, for each set of 5 trials: **
6.5cm, 10dominoes,.892, 0.08075
6.2cm, 8dominoes, 1.362, .1588
5.8cm, 6dominoes, 2.034, .1846
5.5cm, 4 dominoes, 3.938, .1973
5cm, 3 dominoes, 0.778, .1858
This is respectively the length of the rubber band when stretched, the numner of dominoes it had to pull, the mean distance pulled, and the standard deviation.
You do not appear to be reporting the energy associated with the stretch.
** Slope and vertical intercept of straight-line approximation to sliding distance vs. energy, units of slope and vertical intercept, description of the graph and closeness to line, any indication of curvature: **
This might not be accurate it is not quite linear and barely takes a form but 0.13x
N/cm
Everything is cluttered but more force leads to less distance traveled
It is decreasing at an increasing rate steadily. It is unclear.
** Lengths of first and second rubber band for (first-band) tensions supporting 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 dominoes: **
.13x + .35
N/m
This data appeared more accurate than the previous one. It is a slight descending curvature
downward concavity. Decreasing at a slightly increasing rate.
** Mean sliding distance and std dev for each set of 5 trials, using 2 rubber bands in series: **
5cm, 4.3cm
5.5cm, 5.0cm
5.8cm,5.3cm
6.2cm, 5.6cm
6.5cm, 5.8cm
The rubber bands did not nearly need to be stretched as much because there were two rubber bands so this caused less tension on one single rubber band.
** Slope and vertical intercept of straight-line approximation to sliding distance vs. energy, units of slope and vertical intercept, description of the graph and closeness to line, any indication of curvature: **
.902cm, 0.08075
1.452cm, .1588
2.334cm, .1846
3.4538cm, .1973
5.778cm, .1858
** 1-band sliding distance and 2-band sliding distance for each tension: **
.892cm, .902cm
1.362cm, 1.452cm
2.034cm, 2.334cm
3.938cm, 3.4538cm
** Slope and vertical intercept of straight-line approximation to 2-band sliding distance vs. 1-band sliding distance, units of slope and vertical intercept, description of the graph and closeness to line, any indication of curvature: **
.15cm + .45
N/m
curvature
concavity decreasing at an increasing rate
** Discussion of two hypotheses: 1. The sliding distance is directly proportional to the amount of energy required to stretch the rubber band. 2. If two rubber bands are used the sliding distance is determined by the total amount of energy required to stretch them. **
I always had a slight curvature but that would be due to random error that occurs in all experiments. I sometimes considered linear proportionality, but wanted to see how much of a curvature it was.
** How long did it take you to complete this experiment? **
150 minutes
** Optional additional comments and/or questions: **
This experiment was not done correctly according to instructions, but you appear to have performed an interesting variant on the experiment. If you can clarify exactly what was done, we can probably make something interesting out of this and avoid having to redo anything.
&#Please see my notes and submit a copy of this document with revisions and/or questions, and mark your insertions with &&&&. &#