Report for Experiment #5

Work and Energy on an Air Track

Hridaya Patel
Lab Partner: Mariella Todebush, Hope Morita
TA: Yunhao Zhu

13th March 2024

Introduction
This experiment had two goals: it aimed to verify the work-energy theorem and measure the
acceleration caused by gravity using accurate instruments. Reaching this goal required learning
new ideas and developing proficiency using specialised tools. The Ultrasonic Measurement
System (UMS), a sophisticated electronic interface, was essential to the data collection process.
In order to calculate velocity, acceleration, and to visualise data trends, the UMS continually
recorded the temporal location of an item. The UMS used a sonar transceiver to send and receive
ultrasonic pulses, which allowed the distance travelled by these waves to be calculated using a
predetermined formula.
𝑑 = 𝑐𝑠 Δ𝑡
The object's distance travelled is equal to half the sound wave's distance travelled, assuming a
constant speed of sound, as the equation suggests.
𝑥 = 0.5𝑐𝑠 ∆𝑡
Using the UMS, the margin of error for x was ±1mm. The following equation demonstrates the
application of the work-energy theorem to horizontal motion.

𝐹𝑥 ∆𝑥 = 0.5𝑚𝑣𝑓2 − 0.5𝑚𝑣𝑖2
The following equation shows the link between work and energy as it relates to calculating
velocity along an inclined plane.
𝑣 2 = 2𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 (𝑥 − 𝑥0)
The glider's horizontal velocity with a weight attached was to be calculated using the final
equation needed for the experiment, which was
2𝑚𝑔
𝑣2 = (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )
𝑚+𝑚

Investigation 1
To begin, the air source had to be turned on and the pressure had to be just right to allow the
glider to go freely without creating too much friction between the glider and the air holes. After
that, a screw at one end was used to level the air track. After noting the height of the wooden
block's initial step and accounting for measurement error, the block was positioned underneath
the screw-end leg. The track's length was then measured and found to be 1 metre, with a +/-0.002
metre inaccuracy. After then, the "Table & Graph" tab was chosen when the PASCO Capstone
programme was opened. A new table was made, with the y-axis displayed in one column (called
"Position") and the x-axis displayed in another (called "Time"). After setting the motion sensor's
default sample rate to 20 Hz, the glider was pushed down the track until the reflector was 20 cm
from the sensor. The glider was launched while pushing the "Record" button, and after a few
bounces, it came to a stop when the "Stop" button was hit. The air source was turned off and the
gathered data was moved to an Excel sheet. A position vs. time graph was then created after that.
For the purpose of computing the average velocity and average velocity squared, two more
columns were made. The following formula was used to get the average velocity.
𝑥𝑛+1 − 𝑥𝑛
𝑣=
∆𝑡
Making use of the provided formula, the velocity squared error was calculated.
𝛿𝑥
𝛿𝑣 2 = √8𝑣 2 ( )
∆𝑡
Then, using the given formula, a new column was made to record the mean position between
consecutive points.
𝑥𝑛+1 − 𝑥𝑛
𝑥𝑎𝑣𝑔 =
2
The newly formed column and the velocity squared column were then used to produce a graph
with two series: one series showed the data that was obtained when the glider was moving away
from the motion sensor, and the other series showed the data that was collected when it was
moving in the direction of the sensor. Interestingly, these series had different slopes because of
the effect of gravitational acceleration; the data that were farther away were accelerated in the
direction of gravity, while the data that were closer to the source of gravity were accelerated in
the opposite direction. After that, each series was given a best fit line, and the corresponding
equations were shown on the graph.

Data

Part1 Investigation1
Part2 Investigation1
Part3 Investigation1

h (m) 0.0360

d (m) 1.000
sin (theta) 0.0360

deltasin(theta)/sin(theta) 0.014032

deltah 0.0005
deltah/h 0.01388889

deltad 0.002

deltad/d 0.002
deltasin(theta) 0.0005

slope towards (m/s)^2/m 0.6522

gtowards (m/s^2) 9.1

slope away (m/s)^2/m 0.6053

gaway (m/s^2) 8.406944

gavg (m/s^2) 8.753472

% difference of gavg to known 10.67885

Analysis
Even while the % difference in gravity was not very small, it was nevertheless small enough to
support the work-energy theory, especially in light of the construction of a straight-line graph
with a reasonable gravity value. The gravitational error itself was the main cause of mistake in
this investigation.

Investigation 2
Investigation 2's process was quite similar to that of Investigation 1's. It started with the glider
and lead weight masses being measured and recorded. Then, using paper tape and a clip, the lead
weight was attached to the glider. The tape was extended over the air pulley to allow the weight
to be suspended off the table. After that, the same procedures as in the initial study were carried
out, but this time the glider was released from rest 40 cm rather than 20 cm from the sensor. The
second study's data analysis was identical to the previous one; the only difference was in how the
gravitational value was determined, which needed the masses to be included using a different
formula.

Mass glider (kg) 0.375

hanging lead + 0.029
paper clip (kg)
Analysis
It was clear from the experiments that there was a flaw in the equipment used, which caused too
much energy to be lost in each impact. The experimental gravity that resulted from this
equipment fault was highly skewed, making the work-energy theorem impossible to verify.

Conclusion
This experiment demonstrated that the work-energy theory may be verified experimentally and
that precision instrumentation can occasionally be used to measure gravitational acceleration
properly. Unfortunately, the second investigation's results were inconclusive owing to equipment
malfunction, which prevented it from meeting the experiment's objectives. However, based on
the results of the first inquiry, the experiment might still be deemed successful in spite of this
setback. The work-energy theorem was validated in the first research because the graph showed
a linear trend with a slope that matched the determined gravity value.

Questions

Answer1)
The accuracy of the motion sensor tends to decrease as the glider accelerates. Motion sensors
measure the time it takes for an item to travel a predetermined distance in order to determine its
position. The glider may cover longer distances in less time when its velocity increases, which
makes it more difficult for the sensor to track precisely. Furthermore, elements like air resistance
at high speeds might increase the sensor's measurement error margin.

Answer2)
Friction reduces the energy of the system as the glider is ascending and descending.

Answer3)
Answer4)
9.8 m/s^2

Answer5)
½ *(m+M)vf^2 = .0936 J

Honors section:

Answer3)
In order to conduct the experiment, the average velocity (v) between adjacent data points was
determined and then plotted against the average location (av x av) between those sites. This
method is an approximation, even if it assumes a roughly constant velocity between intervals.
The accuracy of the data may be impacted, though, if it does not accurately depict velocity
changes within each period.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my lab partners and lab TA.

References
Physics: Principles with Applications, 7e by Douglas C Giancoli