The graphs above demonstrate that there is a value, but theoretically this value should be zero. As demonstrated in Table 1, every trial lost momentum. As the formula for momentum is and the mass remained constant, the velocity must be the responsible factor. Additionally, the only the magnitude of is necessary to observe adherence to the conservation law. The conservation law states that should be equal to zero, and as this wasn’t observed in any trial, it can be said that the conservation law was ineffective in this system. This is also replicated in the loss of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is being lost in the form of sound as the collision takes place. However, kinetic energy is a scalar quantity, therefore the difference between
…show more content…
This is the reason behind the identical values observed, and was predicted with the aid of the theoretical proof.
Firstly, several errors related to the air hockey table were observed. Primarily, there was the possibility of inconsistent pressure regions on the air hockey table. It is likely that there were regions on the table with high pressure and low pressure regions, which would affect the friction upon the pucks. Although the air hockey puck was chosen to reduce friction, the inconsistent pressure regions may have caused more friction, slowing the puck down and affecting the velocity. Both the air pushing the pucks and the friction are external forces, and although this experiment aimed to reduce the effect of these systematic errors, it is likely that there was still an overall effect on the puck’s velocity. Although the launch angle and velocity were attempted to be kept constant, upon analysis of the results it was found that these values varied, leading to the inaccurate results. Solutions to rectify this error are discussed more in depth further …show more content…
As the calculator only displays the acute angle, these calculations were always verified by filling in as many knowns as possible, i.e. a to scale diagram, with all known angles displayed. This enabled the sine rule error to be identified, when the angle in the diagram was clearly obtuse, and was rectified by subtracting the acute angle from 180°.
In addition to the errors related to the air hockey table, there were also errors in relation to the velocities. For the conservation of momentum law to be observed, the initial velocity and the initial angle of Puck A and Puck B must be constant throughout each trial. Although measures were taken to ensure these values were constant, it is clear when comparing the recorded values from Tracker, the velocity and the angle of collision varied throughout the trials.
Another error observed was the behaviour of the collisions. The majority of the collisions were elastic, but several collisions were inelastic; the pucks were observed travelling together as one object for several frames. This experiment did not measure or investigate the effect of angular momentum, which would result in an abnormality in the final momentum values. This can be confirmed by watching the recordings of the experiment – several pucks in various trials lose the majority of their momentum, but continue to spin in a roundabout
This is the reason behind the identical values observed, and was predicted with the aid of the theoretical proof.
Firstly, several errors related to the air hockey table were observed. Primarily, there was the possibility of inconsistent pressure regions on the air hockey table. It is likely that there were regions on the table with high pressure and low pressure regions, which would affect the friction upon the pucks. Although the air hockey puck was chosen to reduce friction, the inconsistent pressure regions may have caused more friction, slowing the puck down and affecting the velocity. Both the air pushing the pucks and the friction are external forces, and although this experiment aimed to reduce the effect of these systematic errors, it is likely that there was still an overall effect on the puck’s velocity. Although the launch angle and velocity were attempted to be kept constant, upon analysis of the results it was found that these values varied, leading to the inaccurate results. Solutions to rectify this error are discussed more in depth further …show more content…
As the calculator only displays the acute angle, these calculations were always verified by filling in as many knowns as possible, i.e. a to scale diagram, with all known angles displayed. This enabled the sine rule error to be identified, when the angle in the diagram was clearly obtuse, and was rectified by subtracting the acute angle from 180°.
In addition to the errors related to the air hockey table, there were also errors in relation to the velocities. For the conservation of momentum law to be observed, the initial velocity and the initial angle of Puck A and Puck B must be constant throughout each trial. Although measures were taken to ensure these values were constant, it is clear when comparing the recorded values from Tracker, the velocity and the angle of collision varied throughout the trials.
Another error observed was the behaviour of the collisions. The majority of the collisions were elastic, but several collisions were inelastic; the pucks were observed travelling together as one object for several frames. This experiment did not measure or investigate the effect of angular momentum, which would result in an abnormality in the final momentum values. This can be confirmed by watching the recordings of the experiment – several pucks in various trials lose the majority of their momentum, but continue to spin in a roundabout