I think that the lab could have been better because our data has been non consistent by 30 newtons. Also our manipulated variable made the data more consistent because of the extra mass but it broke the string.
Reply
Nicole Choi
10/14/2010 11:18:53 am
We set up. We had at first a few problems with the toy car, but we fixed them quickly before the experiment. The car went smoothly down the ramp, but jerked rather hard on the string when it hit the end of the rope. The force was usually similar but could have various peaks of strength. Our manipulated variable of bubble-wrap slowed down the car quite a bit on the graph, and decreased the velocity. I am confident with the accuracy of our result, but a little wary on one trial in the 2nd table because it's force is rather high up. Otherwise I am confident because whenever we did the trials they seemed correct and the chart's numbers are all quite similar.
Reply
Megan
10/14/2010 11:20:41 am
In my group, during lab, I noticed that the experiment was hectic with only two people doing work of three. While experimenting we decided that the manipulated variable would be the mass. We started by testing the controlled variable. Everything went fine. When we tested the manipulated variable the string broke therefore, we couldn't test anymore.
Reply
Harrison Scantling
10/14/2010 11:22:33 am
Our data recorder didn't record the force. Other than that the lab was great. Everything else that was supposed to get done was done.
Reply
Armon
10/14/2010 11:23:08 am
The manipulated variable was the length of the ramp, and the effect it made was a 0.2-0.6 increase in the data. I'm very confident because I saw the data first-hand.
Reply
sammi
10/14/2010 11:23:51 am
When we added the weights to the car it went slower then when we did not add the weights of the car.
Reply
William
10/14/2010 11:23:53 am
The set up was already good for our manipulated variable so we started with an angle of 20 degrees and then changed to 10 degrees. I think that our data may be a bit off because we forgot to press zero on Pasco's force sensor. But I think that if the angle is doubled the results may be doubled.
Reply
Mina
10/14/2010 11:23:55 am
In the lab yesterday my group kind of forgot some steps. We did the manipulated variable first since our manipulated variable was to change the steepness of the ramp. We did it first because the ramp was already at 20%. I am not confident on the accuracy of our data for the manipulated variable and the original one because we forgot to press the zero button and some of our data isn't consistent.
Reply
Adrian
10/14/2010 11:24:00 am
What happened yesterday was not really that surprising. For example, according to my view of the lab I think there was no change in the data after we applied the bubble wrap to the ramp and let the car roll down it. The bubble wrap may have given more grip to the car like four wheel drive, but I think the speed hasn't changed at all. Even though a few times the car went off the ramp, I think that I'm confident on our data
Reply
harrison Scantling
10/14/2010 11:27:54 am
Our manipulated variable was the weight of the car. I think our results are accurate because the results matched our prediction.
Reply
Robert
10/14/2010 11:28:29 am
When it started from 1.33, it went down to 1.33, 1.32... No, Yes for the Mass, velocity and momentum recording part but we did not do the force part because we didn't record the force part because we didn't notice the force chart.
Reply
Olivia Maddox
10/14/2010 11:29:38 am
The lab yesterday was quite successful. I thought that it would increase by 20% if we made the angle of the ramp. Our prediction was actually quite close, but it was more like 40-50% that increased. Our manipulated variable was changing the angle of the ramp, to make it steeper. When it was a lot steeper, the information was a lot less consistent, because it was harder to make the spot we dropped it from the same everytime when it was steep. Also we had one human error that could have really effected our data. We accidently forgot to press the "0" button everytime we finished.
Reply
Nicole Levinson
10/14/2010 11:30:06 am
In our lab yesterday we did a lab on newton's laws. Our lab was supposed to show how the velocity changes and newtons change when you change the length of the ramp a car rolls down. Our velocity increased with the manipulative variable and the amount of newtons decreased. I think that some pieces of our data are not accurate because we weren't able to get the car right where the sensor was.
Reply
Ilya Hora
10/14/2010 11:30:35 am
First we set up the lab by attaching the car to the cardboard, putting the ramp and etc. Then, we did our trial run of launching the car down the ramp, to see if the PASCO monitor was working. Then, we did 15 trials of rolling the car down the ramp ( without the bubble wrap. Then, we did 15 trials ( with the bubble wrap .
Reply
kate Eastwood
10/14/2010 02:38:22 pm
Reply
Raz
10/14/2010 02:41:28 pm
Yesterday our was good but when we put our manipulated variable the slope was to high and the string broke because the string was to small.
Reply
Kate Eastwood
10/14/2010 02:42:56 pm
In our lab yesterday, we had to pull the car up the ramp and record 15 trials and then change our manipulated variable and then do 15 more trials. My group's manipulated variable was the plank of wood. We made it 20 degrees instead of 10. When we made the plank of wood higher, our results got higher too. The accuracy of our results was very good because the numbers weren't all over the place.
Reply
Hilary
10/14/2010 02:43:35 pm
My manipulated video was mass. According to our data, the momentum did not change in anyway when we increased the mass of the car. Although according to Newton's 2nd law, momentum is supposed to increase when mass is added to the object. (And velocity should decrease) This probably happened because of some human errors. In the middle of our lab, our string broke off, and we weren't sure the length of our original string. There was probably some miscommunication when i measured the string, and Esther probably didn't hear what i say, which in the end, was probably the cause of incorrect data.
Reply
Amit Kannor
10/14/2010 02:44:23 pm
In my lab, the data decreased. I think that we have a really good result of the data and we record and communicated very well. Our manipulated variable was that we changed the distance of the ramp.
Reply
Aubrey Musco
10/14/2010 02:44:46 pm
The lab yesterday worked pretty well, but when we finished, we realized that we forgot to recored the force, so we had to start all over. In our group, our manipulated variable was to make the ramps distance longer (by 1/2 of a meter) Our data decreased about 5-10%. Overall, the lob went pretty well.
Reply
Hilary
10/14/2010 02:46:31 pm
IGNORE MY FIRST POST.
My manipulated variable was mass. According to our data, the momentum did not change in anyway when we increased the mass of the car. Although according to Newton's 2nd law, momentum is supposed to increase when mass is added to the object. (And velocity should decrease) This probably happened because of some human errors. In the middle of our lab, our string broke off, and we weren't sure the length of our original string. There was probably some miscommunication when i measured the string, and Esther probably didn't hear what i said, which in the end, was probably the cause of incorrect data.
Reply
Donovan Kelly
10/14/2010 02:46:46 pm
My manipulated variable was the weight it had considerably more momentum than less weight
Reply
christopher Lee
10/14/2010 02:47:03 pm
Our lab went kind of bad because the string broke and it might effect our data. Our manipulated variable was changing the angle of the slope and that effect our data because the force was strong so the force increase by 10.
Reply
Vicky :)
10/14/2010 02:47:10 pm
Yesterday, for our lab we had to measure the mass and velocity of a car going down a ramp that was at 10˚. We are going to use this information to calculate the momentum of the car. We then made our ramp 10˚ so that it was 20˚. We did the same thing and we found that the velocity of the car was much faster and the force that was pulling on the force sensor was much faster. Our manipulated variable was the height of the ramp. I am mostly confident on the accuracy of our results. Sometimes, the results were way off and completely unrealistic, so we did it again.
Reply
Esther Lim
10/14/2010 02:47:33 pm
Our group's manipulated variable was mass. I think there were some errors in our lab. First, the velocity before adding mass and after we add was the same. Second, during the lab, the string fell off and we had to fix it. I think the string's length was different from the string before.
Reply
Harold
10/14/2010 02:47:37 pm
For our Lab we changed the length of the ramp, the effect of the data was a decrease of 5%. But I am not too confinement of the because we had to redue the Lab because we forgot to recored the force. There for we had to redue the lab as fast as we can.
Reply
matthew the awesome
10/14/2010 02:47:47 pm
the lab was very sucessful but the string broke and we had to get a new string. And also, our machine went weird and gave extreme information
Reply
Harry.T
10/14/2010 02:48:23 pm
Our data was very concise and we were on of the first to finish. when we had no weight we were very fast and increasing , but when we added the weight the force decreased.
Reply
Paul Wan
10/14/2010 02:48:28 pm
Our manipulated variable are changing the mass it did have a such effect because the car went faster.
Reply
Dixon Ma
10/14/2010 02:48:36 pm
I think the lab that we did yesterday had decrease. I think that we had did a bad job because Harold and I don't believe that we need to take the force down and we have to did it again.
Reply
Donovan Kelly
10/14/2010 02:50:46 pm
My manipulated variable was the weight.more weight had more momentum than less weight
Reply
matthew the awesomer
10/14/2010 02:51:35 pm
our data told us that we were wrong and that indeed our hypothesis was right, the angle changed the momentum like in our hypothesis
Reply
Christine Ahn =]
10/14/2010 02:52:13 pm
Yesterday in the lab our angle of our ramp was exactly 10 degrees so we didn't need to change the angle of the ramp. After we did 15 times down the ramp without the weights we did another 15 times with the weights. The difference was that the force of the car with the weights were stronger than the first time we rolled the car down the ramp. But the speed of the weighted car was slower than the car without the weights. I am confident with my data because the numbers were almost the same in each data.
Reply
Leave a Reply.
Instructions
Please write a thoughtful response to each daily warm-up question. "I don't know" is not what I'm looking for!