Mechanic Lab Report

MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY
MANICALANDS COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND PROCESSING
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
BSc(Hons) Chemical and Processing Engineering
HCHE 225 MECHANICS
Title:
(Average vs Instantaneous
Velocities)
Kinematics
Name:
Panashe Muduzu
Reg #:
Date:
R14966Z
09 June 2016
Partners:
Kumbirai Jiho
Tatenda Katai
Tanaka Makoena
Tapiwanashe Mutsauri
Tapiwa Tokwe
Leobah Gurure
Chiedza Mudimu
Tanaka Ben
Blessed Zhou
Aim:
To investigate one
dimensional
accelerated motion
DIAGRAM AND EQUIPMENT
tPAScar
PAScar (ME-6950)
Metric tape (SE-8712)
Stopwatch (SE-8702)
ABSTRACT
A PAScar was used to investigate one dimensional accelerated motion.
The car was launched over the floor using the built-in plunger and
decelerated due to rolling friction and floor slope. The percentage
difference between experimental t1 and theoretical t1 calculated assuming
constant acceleration inferred that acceleration was almost constant.
THEORY
The car was allowed to roll to a stop. The distance D covered and the
total elapsed
time T from launch to stop was measured and recorded. The average
velocity over
this interval is given by:
vav =
(EQN-1):
D
T
If the acceleration of the car is constant as it rolls to a stop over the floor,
then
the
initial instantaneous velocity of the car at the final moment of launch is
given by:
(EQN-2):
v0 = 2vav =
2D
T
And the value of the acceleration would be given by:

(EQN-3):
a=
v
t
0v 0
T
2 D
T2
Knowing the acceleration and v0 are, the time t1 required to cover the
distance d
to some intermediate point (i.e. short of the final stopping point!) was
calculated by
applying the quadratic formula to:
d = v0t1 +
(EQN-4):
1
2
at12
Calculated values of t1 were compared with directly measured values. The

constancy of the acceleration of the car was indicated by the extent to
which the calculated values agreed with the directly measured values.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
A distance d that was about half way out from the start was marked,
measured and recorded after roughly determining the range of the cart. T,
t1 and D for each launch were determined using a stopwatch with a lap
timer and metric tape. The step just mentioned was done for six launches
and the data was recorded in a table. Calculations in the table were
completed using equations described in theory section and data recorded
in the table.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
For Trial 1 in Table 1
Vav =
D 185.8 cm
=
T
6.63 s
= 28.024 cms-1
V0 = 2(vav) = 2(28.024) = 56.048 cms-1

a=-(
2(185.8)
6.63 2
) = -8.454 cms-2
d = v0t1 +
Using:
1
2
at12
87.5 = 56.048t1 +
1
(8.454)
2
-4.227t12 + 56.048t1 -87.5 = 0
Rearranging:
Solving using the quadratic formula:
t1 = 1.81 s
% Difference
t12
X 1X
X avg
* 100%
where X1 = 1.92s
X2 = 1.81s
Xavg = (1.92 + 1.81) /2
= 1.865 s
1.921.81
1.865
% Difference =
* 100% = 5.898% = +6%
TABLE OF RESULTS
d = 87.5 cm
Trial
Experiment
t1(sec)
a(cm/s
2
)
-8.45
Theor
y
t1(sec)
% Diff
1.81
+6
1.92
T (sec) D (cm) v0(cm/

s)
6.63
185.8 56.05
2.00
6.86
183.8
53.59
-7.81
1.89
+6
1.99
6.31
176.8
56.04
-8.88
1.83
+8
1.90
6.70
192.7
57.52
-8.59
1.75
+8
1.82
6.49
185.8
57.26
-8.82
1.77
+2
1.92
6.70
178.3
53.22
-7.94
1.92
Table 1
DISCUSSION
Negative acceleration demonstrated the principle of Newtons second law
motions thus fulfilling the purpose of the experiment. Trials 1 4 had
percentage difference more than 3 . This difference may have been as
a result of slow or fast reaction time, the gradient of the slope and the
smoothness and uniformity of the surface. Considering reaction time,
timing the car exactly when it stopped was challenging therefore the time
recorded to cover a certain distance might have been just before or after
the car had stopped. Furthermore the surface used was not smooth and
uniform therefore it provided more friction than assumed in theoretical
calculations thus the percentage difference in the two experimental
methods was not in the range of 3 .
Trial 5 and 6 were in the range of
3 . This is attributed to less reaction
time errors as the experiment proceeded.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Taping a long piece of butcher paper to the surface on which the cart rolls
and using 1/4 inch plate glass as surface for the car to improve
smoothness of the surface and lessen friction.
CONCLUSION
The aim of the experiment was achieved. The percentage difference
between two experimental methods were small indicating that the results
were consistent with the assumption of constant acceleration. Thus we
can establish that the acceleration was constant.
1. There is no systematic difference between the experimental and
calculated values of t1 since the values do not deviate by a common
factor from each other. The difference is due to random errors
influenced by external factors such friction of the surface, air
resistance and reaction time.

Mechanic Lab Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanic Lab Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mechanic Lab Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY

MANICALANDS COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCIENCES

DIAGRAM AND EQUIPMENT

And the value of the acceleration would be given by:

Calculated values of t1 were compared with directly measured values. The

V0 = 2(vav) = 2(28.024) = 56.048 cms-1

-4.227t12 + 56.048t1 -87.5 = 0

Solving using the quadratic formula:

* 100% = 5.898% = +6%

T (sec) D (cm) v0(cm/

3 . This is attributed to less reaction

time errors as the experiment proceeded.

You might also like