Phy 201
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? **
2.3, 8
The block moved about 2.3cm after the rubber band was stretched to 7.23cm (the length it stretch with 2 dominoes attached). And after the block slid on the paper, I'd say it rotated around 2 degrees, but that is purely a guess.
** #$&* 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of two dominoes: **
2.3, 8
2.0, 0
3.1, 3
3.0, 2
2.7, 1
These numbers represent the distance the block slid after the rubber band was stretched 7.23cm, and an estimation of their degrees of rotation.
** #$&* Rubber band lengths resulting in 5 cm, 10 cm and 15 cm slides: **
7.7, 8.2, 8.6
These are the lengths of the rubberband that resulted in a slide of 5cm, 10cm, and 15cm respectively.
** #$&* 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of four dominoes: **
4.1, 2
5.2, 2
5.8, 12
4.5, 5
3.8, 1
These numbers represent the distance the block slid after the rubber band was stretched 7.40cm, and an estimation of their degrees of rotation.
** #$&* 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of six dominoes: **
5.6, 5
7.2, 15
9.1, 8
7.6, 3
7.7, 5
These numbers represent the distance the block slid after the rubber band was stretched 7.65cm, and an estimation of their degrees of rotation.
** #$&* 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of eight dominoes: **
8.4, 7
8.2, 5
6.8, 1
9.0, 15
9.1, 16
These numbers represent the distance the block slid after the rubber band was stretched 7.81cm, and an estimation of their degrees of rotation.
** #$&* 5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of ten dominoes: **
13.1, 4
13.3, 6
14.1, 10
12.4, 2
14.8, 10
These numbers represent the distance the block slid after the rubber band was stretched 8.06cm, and an estimation of their degrees of rotation.
** #$&* Rubber band length, the number of dominoes supported at this length, the mean and the standard deviation of the sliding distance in cm, and the energy associated with the stretch, for each set of 5 trials: **
7.23, 2, 2.62, 0.4658, 0.38 J
7.40, 4, 4.68, 0.8167, 0.76 J
7.65, 6, 7.44, 1.254, 1.17 J
7.81, 8, 8.30, 0.9219, 1.52 J
8.06, 10, 13.54, 0.9289, 1.79 J
These numbers represent the length of the stretched rubber band, the number of dominoes, the average distance the block slid, the standard deviation of that slide, and the amount of energy associated with the amount of stretch in the rubber band.
You don't say how you calculated the energy.
However according to your data, between rubber band lengths 7.23 cm and 8.06 cm lengths the average force more or less equal to 1.2 Newtons, the approximate weight of six dominoes.
The distance the block travels between these lengths is about .8 cm, so the work done during this .8 cm interval is about .8 cm * 1.2 Newtons = .96 Newton centimeters.
.96 Newton cm is about .0096 J.
The energies you calculate might actually be in N * cm; however even if that is the case they are roughly twice as great as they should be.
** #$&* 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: **
0.129, 0.17
J/cm, J
My graph showed a pretty much straight line relationship. The line of best fit was very linear.
** #$&* Lengths of first and second rubber band for (first-band) tensions supporting 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 dominoes: **
0.184, 0
J/cm, J
Again, they were pretty close but not as close as my first graph. There was a little more curvature in this graph
** #$&* Mean sliding distance and std dev for each set of 5 trials, using 2 rubber bands in series: **
7.23, 7.26
7.40, 7.45
7.65, 7.69
7.81, 7.90
8.06, 8.11
** #$&* Slope and vertical intercept of straight-line approximation to sliding distance vs. energy, units of slope and vertical intercept, description of the graph and closeness to line, any indication of curvature: **
5.8, 0.4658
11.2, 0.8219
15.5, 0.9289
17.8, 0.9817
22.6, 0.9219
** 1-band sliding distance and 2-band sliding distance for each tension: **
2.62, 5.8
4.68, 11.2
7.44, 15.5
8.30, 17.8
13.54, 22.6
** #$&* 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: **
1.54, 4.8
J/cm, J
These data points were a little more spread out. It appeared as though the points we kind of presenting themselves in an increasing at a decreasing rate. But since I only had 5 data points, it was hard to tell
** #$&* Discussion of two hypotheses: 1. The sliding distance is directly proportional to the amount of energy required to stretch the rubber band. 2. If two rubber bands are used the sliding distance is determined by the total amount of energy required to stretch them. **
i would agree with this statement. By looking at my first two graphs, there slopes are very similar, telling me that the sliding distance is directly proportional to the amount of energy in the system.
** #$&* How long did it take you to complete this experiment? **
about 2 1/2 hours
** #$&* Optional additional comments and/or questions: **
Good data. However I'm not sure you calculated your energies correctly. See my notes and see if you can clarify.
&#Please see my notes and submit a copy of this document with revisions and/or questions, and mark your insertions with &&&& (please mark each insertion at the beginning and at the end). &#