#$&*
course PHY 232
Assignment 00As for the assignments that i have encountered are well before and after Transition to physics II, have been a good review of some
mathematical background that i have taken before, a little bit
coming Physics I and the rest being common knowledge that one is
expected to know up to this level.
*********************************************
Question: This question, related to the use of the TIMER program in an experimental situation, is posed in terms of a familiar first-semester system.
Suppose you use a computer timer to time a steel ball 1 inch in diameter rolling down a straight wooden incline about 50 cm long. If the computer timer indicates that on five trials the times of an object down an incline are 2.42 sec, 2.56 sec, 2.38 sec, 2.47 sec and 2.31 sec, then to what extent do you think the discrepancies could be explained by each of the following:
·The lack of precision of the TIMER program.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
As for the precision factor on the timer program extends to 0.001 or more while for the computer time seems to be precise to 0.01 which is a clear indication of the difference.
·The uncertain precision of human triggering (uncertainty associated with an actual human finger on a computer mouse)
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Since the human finger can also be considered as a discrepancies due to the inconsistency in clicking which could result to 0.01 to 0.0001 seconds or more delay that could potentially affect the timer too.
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Since the object is rolling down an incline to a specified distance
will require to stop and then restarted at its initial position, which the process is repeated several times, the process itself will not be precise as it depends on a lot of factors, restarting from initial to final position manually, pressing the timer or using the computer all require divided attention.
·Differences in positioning the object prior to release.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Since there is no fixed starting or initial position on the incline, it is assumed that one possible position at the top
has to be selected, in order release the object to roll down, as
the process is repeated there will be slight movements and inconstancy on the initial positions which will create discrepancies. To help prevent this select and initial position and mark it on the incline and try to maintain that specific position for all the runs.
·Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
As for the observation of the object getting to the bottom of the incline which we could refer to the final position would require, almost a similar approach to the starting or initial position by clearly marking and setting a gate or a fixed object at the end of the incline and making sure that the object rolling does not cross that point.
"
&#This looks very good. Let me know if you have any questions. &#