The two graphs of the distance vs. time graph along with the velocity vs. time graph, accurately supports the hypothesis formed at the beginning of this experiment. From the interpretation of the first graph, the chart vaguely shows the changing velocity (acceleration) as well as positive velocity of the objects motion (as seen from the slight curve upwards). However, from another perspective, it might seem as if the diagram is showing a constant, positive velocity as the line is linear with no curved progression. Nevertheless, if the line was to be linear and was of best fit when analysing the graph, it will propose the fact that it will take the trolley about 0.65 seconds when released at zero meters. It is, of course, known that this is
…show more content…
However, at a distance of 1.2 meters, taking the trolley around 1.62 seconds to reach the end of the ramp, the difference is greater at a value of 0.42. Therefore, the velocity will also be at a larger amount. When plugged into the formula, the velocity is equal to 0.74 m/s, therefore supporting this analysis. In the result of this examination process, the maximum average velocity achieved is at 1.2 meters as elucidated before.
The second graph of the velocity verse time diagram as to the distance verse time chart correspondingly shows the acceleration of the cart and the maximum speed achieved. This linear progression demonstrates the relationship between the two variables, simply stating that the object has positive velocity and positive acceleration.
Hence, using these two graphs determines the maximum speed achieved and the acceleration of the object. At a distance of 1.2 meters, the trolley had taken approximately 1.62 seconds to complete the length and through calculations, the velocity is about 0.74 m/s. It can also be established that according to these two charts, there is acceleration (the changing of speed) present in the object’s …show more content…
The primary source of error in this experiment would have, undoubtedly, been the countless human errors conducted throughout this investigation. As one method of the examination was to start and stop the timer, as well as, to release and stop the cart, since reaction time is varied, it was impossible to eliminate this form of error. However, human error was marginally reduced by methods that prepared the team members for when to start or to stop their designated equipment. One effective way was by listening to the sounds of the collision between the wall and the cart to instantly halt the timer counting seconds. Another method that was followed to maintain the minimum human error possible was to allocate positions to particular team members that involved the timers or the conduct of the cart, to be the same person throughout all the trials. All data would then only rely on that particular person’s reaction time for all the tests. However, occasionally since two timers were operating at the same time (the stopwatch and the motion sensor), majority of the results were often based on the motion sensor while others were reliant on the stopwatch. With varying instruments measuring the one variable of time, it would, therefore, affect the accuracy of the measurements, as it is dependent on two individual 's reaction
However, at a distance of 1.2 meters, taking the trolley around 1.62 seconds to reach the end of the ramp, the difference is greater at a value of 0.42. Therefore, the velocity will also be at a larger amount. When plugged into the formula, the velocity is equal to 0.74 m/s, therefore supporting this analysis. In the result of this examination process, the maximum average velocity achieved is at 1.2 meters as elucidated before.
The second graph of the velocity verse time diagram as to the distance verse time chart correspondingly shows the acceleration of the cart and the maximum speed achieved. This linear progression demonstrates the relationship between the two variables, simply stating that the object has positive velocity and positive acceleration.
Hence, using these two graphs determines the maximum speed achieved and the acceleration of the object. At a distance of 1.2 meters, the trolley had taken approximately 1.62 seconds to complete the length and through calculations, the velocity is about 0.74 m/s. It can also be established that according to these two charts, there is acceleration (the changing of speed) present in the object’s …show more content…
The primary source of error in this experiment would have, undoubtedly, been the countless human errors conducted throughout this investigation. As one method of the examination was to start and stop the timer, as well as, to release and stop the cart, since reaction time is varied, it was impossible to eliminate this form of error. However, human error was marginally reduced by methods that prepared the team members for when to start or to stop their designated equipment. One effective way was by listening to the sounds of the collision between the wall and the cart to instantly halt the timer counting seconds. Another method that was followed to maintain the minimum human error possible was to allocate positions to particular team members that involved the timers or the conduct of the cart, to be the same person throughout all the trials. All data would then only rely on that particular person’s reaction time for all the tests. However, occasionally since two timers were operating at the same time (the stopwatch and the motion sensor), majority of the results were often based on the motion sensor while others were reliant on the stopwatch. With varying instruments measuring the one variable of time, it would, therefore, affect the accuracy of the measurements, as it is dependent on two individual 's reaction