We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

# Physics Lab Report Paper

Words: 938, Paragraphs: 7, Pages: 4

Paper type: Report , Subject: Lab Reports

Inspire Calculator was connected to the force sensor in order to track and create data that would be shown in graphs on the calculator. Because we had to compare the collision of the cart with the force sensor with and without the plunger, it would force us to run two trials in total (one run with the plunger, and one run without the plunger). Once all of the materials were prepared, I began with run one, which was with the plunger, and later run ova without the plunger. After running both trials, assuming that accurate data was gleaned, began to analyze and compare the data obtained trot the torte sensor.

The It-Inspire Calculator created “data and statistics” graphs as Force (N) by Time (5) graphs. In order to easily see the physical differences between the two graphs, we manipulated the menu of the calculator and placed both graphs on the same screen, one on top of the other. In the data collected, run one (with plunger) graph was physically more round than that of run two (without plunger) as run two’s graph was much more sharp and looked more of a triangle like shape. As genealogically innovative as the It-Inspire Calculator is, it also calculated the time of impact for each run.

## Physics Lab Reports

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on Physics Lab Report
Just from \$13,9/Page

Get Essay

The start time of impact for run one was 1. 78 seconds and the end time was I SC seconds, therefore the duration Of impact was 0. 12 seconds. For run two, the start time of impact was 1. 82 seconds, and the end time was I . 88 seconds, so the duration Of impact was C. Ass. It was peculiar to find that the duration of impact with the plunger was approximately twice as long than without the plunger for me, as well as the majority of my classmates. Next, by using these graphs, I found the peak force of both runs and after discovering the peak forces; found a noticeably different amount of force between these runs.

The peak force for run one was 12. 54 N, and the peak force without the plunger was 19. 49 N. Although there is a great difference between these two numbers, it does make sense because the plunger causes the cart to hit the force sensor with more of a cushion and absorbed much tooth energy when colliding into the censor, which makes the direct Iranian with the force ensure less than a direct impact tot the cart with the flat side Later we calculated the impulse of both of these trials using the It-Inspire Calculator, which named impulse as the “integral. In order to calculate the impulse, we used the calculator and calculated the area of the graph for each graph. The impulse of run one was 0. 947 NOSE and the impulse of run two was 0. 584 NOSE. As a class, we came to a conclusion that the impulse of the cart with the plunger was larger than that of a cart without the plunger. Lastly, we used our previous calculations (impulse and duration Of impact) in order to calculate the average force of the run. The formula to find average force is impulse divided by duration Of impact. The average force Of run one was (0. 947/0. Ass 7. 89 N, and the average force of run two was (0. 584/0. Ass) 9. 73 N. Moreover, the average force With the plunger is less than that Of the average for without the plunger. Also, it was consistent that the average force of both trials was both significantly less than the peak force for each corresponding trial. In conclusion, there were many differences between the calculations found teen the trials with and without the plungers of the lab cart. The key differences were the differences between duration of impact, average force, and impulse of both trials.

Part II: As a follow-up lab activity to Part l, we completed a lab in which was to compare the impulse applied to the cart and the change of momentum of the cart. Our goal was to support with Impulse-Momentum Theory with the results that we collected. To begin, we would need a few additional materials to conduct this lab activity. This lab required the use of both the CUB motion sensor as well as the Orca censor to record the position of the cart as well as the force of the cart once it collides with the force sensor _ In order to use both of these sensors simultaneously, Mr..

Patterson introduced a new technology and it avgas named *lab cradle,” which in basic terms, was a multi-channeled data collector with multiple USB ports, and allowed for the connection of more than one sensor. Once these materials ever plugged in and ready to use, eve began to run trials by pushing the lab cart across a flat track and starting the sensors at the same time to record data. After running a few trials to obtain decent data, the It-Inspire showed two graphs that were Force (N) vs..

Time (s) and Position vs.. Time (s). Both graphs were in the shape of triangles, but the Force graph looked much slimmer because we were not able to zoom into the duration of the collision alone. Upon collecting this, was able to find the impulse, which turned out to be 0. 785 NOSE. Later, we created a position vs.. Time graph that appeared to be a triangle as well. We used this graph to find the velocity of the cart before the collision and after, which ere the left and right side of the graph respectively.

This sample paper is done by Joseph, whose major is Psychology at Arizona State University. All the content of this work is his research and thoughts on Physics Lab Report and can be used only as a source of ideas for a similar topic.

Here are other papers written by Joseph:

Choose cite format: