energy conversion 1

Your work on energy conversion 1 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?

2.2 cm., 20 degrees

5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of two dominoes:

3.5cm, 25 degrees

3.6cm, 20 degrees

4.0cm, 25 degrees

3.8cm, 20 degrees

3.7cm, 30 degrees

Rubber band lengths resulting in 5 cm, 10 cm and 15 cm slides:

9.8cm., 10.3cm., 11.cm.

5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of four dominoes:

10cm., 15 degrees

10.5cm., 30 degrees

10.7cm., 25 degrees

11cm., 35 degrees

9.1cm., 30 degrees

5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of six dominoes:

18.7cm., 20 degrees

18.9cm., 25 degrees

18.4cm., 30 degrees

19.3cm., 30 degrees

19.9cm., 35 degrees

5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of eight dominoes:

24.3cm., 25 degrees

26cm., 25 degrees

25.1cm., 35 degrees

23.5cm., 20 degrees

27.1cm., 25 degrees

5 trials, distance in cm then rotation in degrees, with rubber band tension equal to the weight of ten dominoes:

32cm., 20 degrees

35.8cm., 35 degrees

34.5cm., 35 degrees

32.6cm., 25 degrees

33.6cm., 40 degrees

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:

9cm, 2, 3.72cm, .1924, 3.4 N*cm.

10.38cm, 4, 10.26cm, .7436, 7.9 N*cm.

10.88cm, 6, 19.04cm, .5814, 12.4 N*cm.

11.63cm, 8, 25.2cm, 1.411, 17.7 N*cm.

12.38 cm, 10, 33.7cm, 1.513, 23.5 N*cm.

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:

1.49, 0.6

1.49N*cm, 0.6cm.

They are very close to the line formed. My data points indicate a straight-line relationship.

Lengths of first and second rubber band for (first-band) tensions supporting 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 dominoes:

1.42, 4

1.42N*cm, 4cm.

My data fits well to the line, with the first few points lying a little below and the last 2 lying a little above. MY graph indicates a straight-line realtionship.

Mean sliding distance and std dev for each set of 5 trials, using 2 rubber bands in series:

9 cm., 9cm.

10.38cm., 10.38cm.

10.88cm., 10.88cm.

11.63cm., 11.63cm.

12.38cm., 12.38cm.

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:

12.04cm, .7232

21.26cm, .7765

30cm, 1.214

42.82cm, 1.925

69.18cm, 3.722

1-band sliding distance and 2-band sliding distance for each tension:

3.72cm, 12.04cm

10.26cm, 21.26cm

19.04cm, 30cm

25.2cm, 42.82cm

33.7cm, 69.18cm

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:

1.90, 7

1.90cm, 7cm

My data indicates a straight-line relationship and increasing 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 believe this hypotheses is very true. The more energy, the the kmore sliding distance will occur.

How long did it take you to complete this experiment?

3 hours and 30 minutes

Optional additional comments and/or questions:

I have taken a pretty good look at your work and overall everything looks good. I see no serious flaws. Though the discussion process might or might not detect some errors in detail, I do not expect anything that would require major revision in either your report or your understanding.