#$&*
course Phy 232
ph2 query 0Most queries in this course will ask you questions about class notes, readings, text problems and experiments. Since the first two assignments have been lab-related, the first two queries are related to the those exercises. While the remaining queries in this course are in question-answer format, the first two will be in the form of open-ended questions. Interpret these questions and answer them as best you can.
Different first-semester courses address the issues of experimental precision, experimental error, reporting of results and analysis in different ways and at different levels. One purpose of these initial lab exercises is to familiarize your instructor with your work and you with the instructor 's expectations.
Comment on your experience with the three lab exercises you encountered in this assignment or in recent assignments.
*********************************************
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 2.42sec, 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
In this scenario, the TIMER program is at fault assuming that the cause was not human error. If as soon as the ball reached the bottom of the incline, the timer stopped then it would be because the TIMER program has some issues. Achieving the exact same time is very difficult even under the same circumstances for multiple trials; therefore there must be some leeway for the program being a little off. However, for the given set of data, there is a clear discrepancy in the timing of each trial. I believe that under ideal conditions with no outside bias on the system, the TIMER program is at fault.
#$&*
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
This is the next cause of the time differences from run to run. The TIMER program is no longer at fault is the mistake is made by the user himself. The program could be working perfectly fine and then the person recording the time it takes for the ball to roll down the incline could be pressing the stop button at different times. If the system is not rigged to automatically sensor when the ball reaches the bottom of the incline, this is the most likely reason for the times being off. No one could stop the time exactly at the same second for multiple runs, therefore human error would be the main cause for the faulty data set.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I dont believe that this is the reason for the numbers being off. If the same incline is being used along with the same steel ball, the conditions would be the same yielding extremely accurate and precise results for each run. The ball should not take longer to roll down the same length incline as a previous trial.
#$&*
Differences in positioning the object prior to release.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
If the steel ball is placed in a different position at the top of the incline, then yes this would be a major cause of the inaccurate times. Placing the ball in different position changes the distance it has to roll to reach the bottom of the incline, therefore resulting in a different time. The placement of the ball is key and should be a top priority along with using the same materials from one trial to the next.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Going back to the idea of a sensor being placed at the bottom of the incline to exactly determine when the ball reaches the bottom would be ideal. Having a human determine when that moment occurs leaves too much room for uncertainty. The probability of the human clicks the stop button exactly when it crosses the bottom of the incline every trial is highly unlikely and could be a leader in causing the times to be off and or skewed. Human error and bias play a big part in determining how accurate these timed results are.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: How much uncertainty do you think each of the following would actually contribute to the uncertainty in timing a number of trials for the ball-down-an-incline lab?
The lack of precision of the TIMER program.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
It is very unlikely that this is the reason for the timings being off. Human error as discussed before is the leading cause assuming that humans are determining the start and stop positions of the ball and the timer. The program has proven to be a reliable source for accurate timing information and data.
#$&*
The uncertain precision of human triggering (uncertainty associated with an actual human finger on a computer mouse)
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
This is one of the main suspicions for the cause of the inaccurate timings. Clicking the mouse takes time and most likely it will lead to mistakes in the data. I am fairly certain that this is the cause of the issue at hand.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
This is the least likely way in my opinion as the reason for the mistiming. If the same incline is used, and the same ball is started at the same position at the top of the incline, which we assume, then it travels the same distance every time at the same speed.
#$&*
Differences in positioning the object prior to release.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
If this is the case and the ball is being placed to start and at positions along the incline, then this is the cause of the bad timing errors. Having the ball closer to the bottom of the incline means that it will reach the bottom faster than the trial where the ball starts at the top of the incline.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Human uncertainty is a leader in reasons to why the timings are not accurate from trial to trial. Any delay on clicking the mouse causes the data to be skewed. Having a human determine the exact spot where the end of the incline comes to a stop and the ball reaches it is risky because every trial run is likely to get times slightly off from one another.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: What, if anything, could you do about the uncertainty due to each of the following? Address each specifically.
The lack of precision of the TIMER program.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
There is not much to do involving the TIMER program itself because we cannot go into the program to alter it or to fix it if its broken. The TIMER program works and does so accurately, therefore it doesnt need improvement and is reliable. Fixing the TIMER program isnt as easy as fixing things such as human error or bias. The program runs successfully every time it is used.
#$&*
The uncertain precision of human triggering (uncertainty associated with an actual human finger on a computer mouse)
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
To fix a potential issue of human error is very possible and not that difficult. With a human manually hitting the stop button when the ball reaches the end of the incline can cause discrepancies from one trial to the next. Obtaining something such as a sensor that can detect exactly when the ball gets to the bottom of incline would be ideal and would provide more accurate results. This device would need to stop the timer after the ball passes by it at the bottom of the incline.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The only way to prevent this from happening is to make sure that the same ball and the same incline are used for every trial. This would ensure that under accurate timing conditions that the times would be very similar each trial. Also, this includes ensuring that the ball starts from the same location every time and that in turn means that it travels the same distance.
#$&*
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
In order to eliminate any possibility of this being a deciding factor, one could just place the ball at the very top of the incline for every trial or mark the starting point for the ball. Either way would ensure that the ball starts at the same point and therefore has to travel the same distance down the incline to reach the bottom.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The best method for fixing this problem is to take the human out of the process of timing. A human would not hit the timer to end every trial even if the ball reached the bottom of the incline at the exact same time each time. Placing a sensor at the bottom of the incline to relay a message to the timer telling it to stop when the ball reaches the bottom would be the best way to ensure accurate results every trial. Human error can and does account for miscalculations and bias.
#$&*
"
Self-critique (if necessary):
------------------------------------------------
Self-critique rating:
#$&*
course Phy 232
ph2 query 0Most queries in this course will ask you questions about class notes, readings, text problems and experiments. Since the first two assignments have been lab-related, the first two queries are related to the those exercises. While the remaining queries in this course are in question-answer format, the first two will be in the form of open-ended questions. Interpret these questions and answer them as best you can.
Different first-semester courses address the issues of experimental precision, experimental error, reporting of results and analysis in different ways and at different levels. One purpose of these initial lab exercises is to familiarize your instructor with your work and you with the instructor 's expectations.
Comment on your experience with the three lab exercises you encountered in this assignment or in recent assignments.
*********************************************
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 2.42sec, 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
In this scenario, the TIMER program is at fault assuming that the cause was not human error. If as soon as the ball reached the bottom of the incline, the timer stopped then it would be because the TIMER program has some issues. Achieving the exact same time is very difficult even under the same circumstances for multiple trials; therefore there must be some leeway for the program being a little off. However, for the given set of data, there is a clear discrepancy in the timing of each trial. I believe that under ideal conditions with no outside bias on the system, the TIMER program is at fault.
#$&*
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
This is the next cause of the time differences from run to run. The TIMER program is no longer at fault is the mistake is made by the user himself. The program could be working perfectly fine and then the person recording the time it takes for the ball to roll down the incline could be pressing the stop button at different times. If the system is not rigged to automatically sensor when the ball reaches the bottom of the incline, this is the most likely reason for the times being off. No one could stop the time exactly at the same second for multiple runs, therefore human error would be the main cause for the faulty data set.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I dont believe that this is the reason for the numbers being off. If the same incline is being used along with the same steel ball, the conditions would be the same yielding extremely accurate and precise results for each run. The ball should not take longer to roll down the same length incline as a previous trial.
#$&*
Differences in positioning the object prior to release.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
If the steel ball is placed in a different position at the top of the incline, then yes this would be a major cause of the inaccurate times. Placing the ball in different position changes the distance it has to roll to reach the bottom of the incline, therefore resulting in a different time. The placement of the ball is key and should be a top priority along with using the same materials from one trial to the next.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Going back to the idea of a sensor being placed at the bottom of the incline to exactly determine when the ball reaches the bottom would be ideal. Having a human determine when that moment occurs leaves too much room for uncertainty. The probability of the human clicks the stop button exactly when it crosses the bottom of the incline every trial is highly unlikely and could be a leader in causing the times to be off and or skewed. Human error and bias play a big part in determining how accurate these timed results are.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: How much uncertainty do you think each of the following would actually contribute to the uncertainty in timing a number of trials for the ball-down-an-incline lab?
The lack of precision of the TIMER program.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
It is very unlikely that this is the reason for the timings being off. Human error as discussed before is the leading cause assuming that humans are determining the start and stop positions of the ball and the timer. The program has proven to be a reliable source for accurate timing information and data.
#$&*
The uncertain precision of human triggering (uncertainty associated with an actual human finger on a computer mouse)
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
This is one of the main suspicions for the cause of the inaccurate timings. Clicking the mouse takes time and most likely it will lead to mistakes in the data. I am fairly certain that this is the cause of the issue at hand.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
This is the least likely way in my opinion as the reason for the mistiming. If the same incline is used, and the same ball is started at the same position at the top of the incline, which we assume, then it travels the same distance every time at the same speed.
#$&*
Differences in positioning the object prior to release.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
If this is the case and the ball is being placed to start and at positions along the incline, then this is the cause of the bad timing errors. Having the ball closer to the bottom of the incline means that it will reach the bottom faster than the trial where the ball starts at the top of the incline.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Human uncertainty is a leader in reasons to why the timings are not accurate from trial to trial. Any delay on clicking the mouse causes the data to be skewed. Having a human determine the exact spot where the end of the incline comes to a stop and the ball reaches it is risky because every trial run is likely to get times slightly off from one another.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: What, if anything, could you do about the uncertainty due to each of the following? Address each specifically.
The lack of precision of the TIMER program.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
There is not much to do involving the TIMER program itself because we cannot go into the program to alter it or to fix it if its broken. The TIMER program works and does so accurately, therefore it doesnt need improvement and is reliable. Fixing the TIMER program isnt as easy as fixing things such as human error or bias. The program runs successfully every time it is used.
#$&*
The uncertain precision of human triggering (uncertainty associated with an actual human finger on a computer mouse)
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
To fix a potential issue of human error is very possible and not that difficult. With a human manually hitting the stop button when the ball reaches the end of the incline can cause discrepancies from one trial to the next. Obtaining something such as a sensor that can detect exactly when the ball gets to the bottom of incline would be ideal and would provide more accurate results. This device would need to stop the timer after the ball passes by it at the bottom of the incline.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The only way to prevent this from happening is to make sure that the same ball and the same incline are used for every trial. This would ensure that under accurate timing conditions that the times would be very similar each trial. Also, this includes ensuring that the ball starts from the same location every time and that in turn means that it travels the same distance.
#$&*
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
In order to eliminate any possibility of this being a deciding factor, one could just place the ball at the very top of the incline for every trial or mark the starting point for the ball. Either way would ensure that the ball starts at the same point and therefore has to travel the same distance down the incline to reach the bottom.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The best method for fixing this problem is to take the human out of the process of timing. A human would not hit the timer to end every trial even if the ball reached the bottom of the incline at the exact same time each time. Placing a sensor at the bottom of the incline to relay a message to the timer telling it to stop when the ball reaches the bottom would be the best way to ensure accurate results every trial. Human error can and does account for miscalculations and bias.
#$&*
"
Self-critique (if necessary):
------------------------------------------------
Self-critique rating:
#*&!
#$&*
course Phy 232
ph2 query 0Most queries in this course will ask you questions about class notes, readings, text problems and experiments. Since the first two assignments have been lab-related, the first two queries are related to the those exercises. While the remaining queries in this course are in question-answer format, the first two will be in the form of open-ended questions. Interpret these questions and answer them as best you can.
Different first-semester courses address the issues of experimental precision, experimental error, reporting of results and analysis in different ways and at different levels. One purpose of these initial lab exercises is to familiarize your instructor with your work and you with the instructor 's expectations.
Comment on your experience with the three lab exercises you encountered in this assignment or in recent assignments.
*********************************************
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 2.42sec, 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
In this scenario, the TIMER program is at fault assuming that the cause was not human error. If as soon as the ball reached the bottom of the incline, the timer stopped then it would be because the TIMER program has some issues. Achieving the exact same time is very difficult even under the same circumstances for multiple trials; therefore there must be some leeway for the program being a little off. However, for the given set of data, there is a clear discrepancy in the timing of each trial. I believe that under ideal conditions with no outside bias on the system, the TIMER program is at fault.
#$&*
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
This is the next cause of the time differences from run to run. The TIMER program is no longer at fault is the mistake is made by the user himself. The program could be working perfectly fine and then the person recording the time it takes for the ball to roll down the incline could be pressing the stop button at different times. If the system is not rigged to automatically sensor when the ball reaches the bottom of the incline, this is the most likely reason for the times being off. No one could stop the time exactly at the same second for multiple runs, therefore human error would be the main cause for the faulty data set.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
I dont believe that this is the reason for the numbers being off. If the same incline is being used along with the same steel ball, the conditions would be the same yielding extremely accurate and precise results for each run. The ball should not take longer to roll down the same length incline as a previous trial.
#$&*
Differences in positioning the object prior to release.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
If the steel ball is placed in a different position at the top of the incline, then yes this would be a major cause of the inaccurate times. Placing the ball in different position changes the distance it has to roll to reach the bottom of the incline, therefore resulting in a different time. The placement of the ball is key and should be a top priority along with using the same materials from one trial to the next.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
To what extent to you think the discrepancies are explained by this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Going back to the idea of a sensor being placed at the bottom of the incline to exactly determine when the ball reaches the bottom would be ideal. Having a human determine when that moment occurs leaves too much room for uncertainty. The probability of the human clicks the stop button exactly when it crosses the bottom of the incline every trial is highly unlikely and could be a leader in causing the times to be off and or skewed. Human error and bias play a big part in determining how accurate these timed results are.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: How much uncertainty do you think each of the following would actually contribute to the uncertainty in timing a number of trials for the ball-down-an-incline lab?
The lack of precision of the TIMER program.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
It is very unlikely that this is the reason for the timings being off. Human error as discussed before is the leading cause assuming that humans are determining the start and stop positions of the ball and the timer. The program has proven to be a reliable source for accurate timing information and data.
#$&*
The uncertain precision of human triggering (uncertainty associated with an actual human finger on a computer mouse)
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
This is one of the main suspicions for the cause of the inaccurate timings. Clicking the mouse takes time and most likely it will lead to mistakes in the data. I am fairly certain that this is the cause of the issue at hand.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
This is the least likely way in my opinion as the reason for the mistiming. If the same incline is used, and the same ball is started at the same position at the top of the incline, which we assume, then it travels the same distance every time at the same speed.
#$&*
Differences in positioning the object prior to release.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
If this is the case and the ball is being placed to start and at positions along the incline, then this is the cause of the bad timing errors. Having the ball closer to the bottom of the incline means that it will reach the bottom faster than the trial where the ball starts at the top of the incline.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
To what extent to you think this factor would contribute to the uncertainty?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
Human uncertainty is a leader in reasons to why the timings are not accurate from trial to trial. Any delay on clicking the mouse causes the data to be skewed. Having a human determine the exact spot where the end of the incline comes to a stop and the ball reaches it is risky because every trial run is likely to get times slightly off from one another.
#$&*
*********************************************
Question: What, if anything, could you do about the uncertainty due to each of the following? Address each specifically.
The lack of precision of the TIMER program.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
There is not much to do involving the TIMER program itself because we cannot go into the program to alter it or to fix it if its broken. The TIMER program works and does so accurately, therefore it doesnt need improvement and is reliable. Fixing the TIMER program isnt as easy as fixing things such as human error or bias. The program runs successfully every time it is used.
#$&*
The uncertain precision of human triggering (uncertainty associated with an actual human finger on a computer mouse)
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
To fix a potential issue of human error is very possible and not that difficult. With a human manually hitting the stop button when the ball reaches the end of the incline can cause discrepancies from one trial to the next. Obtaining something such as a sensor that can detect exactly when the ball gets to the bottom of incline would be ideal and would provide more accurate results. This device would need to stop the timer after the ball passes by it at the bottom of the incline.
#$&*
Actual differences in the time required for the object to travel the same distance.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The only way to prevent this from happening is to make sure that the same ball and the same incline are used for every trial. This would ensure that under accurate timing conditions that the times would be very similar each trial. Also, this includes ensuring that the ball starts from the same location every time and that in turn means that it travels the same distance.
#$&*
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
In order to eliminate any possibility of this being a deciding factor, one could just place the ball at the very top of the incline for every trial or mark the starting point for the ball. Either way would ensure that the ball starts at the same point and therefore has to travel the same distance down the incline to reach the bottom.
#$&*
Human uncertainty in observing exactly when the object reached the end of the incline.
What do you think you could do about the uncertainty due to this factor?
your answer: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
The best method for fixing this problem is to take the human out of the process of timing. A human would not hit the timer to end every trial even if the ball reached the bottom of the incline at the exact same time each time. Placing a sensor at the bottom of the incline to relay a message to the timer telling it to stop when the ball reaches the bottom would be the best way to ensure accurate results every trial. Human error can and does account for miscalculations and bias.
#$&*
&#This looks very good. Let me know if you have any questions. &#