lunes, 1 de junio de 2015

Motion In Air Investigation


Background

The motion of an object varies depending on the initial speed, the acceleration and the forces that interfere with it (School-for-champions.com, 2015).  Some of these forces are:
     
   Gravity is a constant (g) affected by the altitude of the object (9,98m/s).
Air friction depends on the speed and the volume of the object, and the density of the air.
If we change one of these factors, the distance, the speed or the time in which the object will fly will vary.

As we are investigating how mass varies the displacement of a projectile, these formulas seem relevant:

Newton’s second law: F = M × A (Teachertech.rice.edu, 2015)
*Force is measured in Newtons (kg·m/s2)

A kinematic equation: d = vi × t +1/2 × a ×  t(Formulas.tutorvista.com, 2015)
*Displacement is measured in metres.

Time of flight: t = 2v0 × sinq (Physicsclassroom.com, 2015)

The first formula shows that if the mass increases, the acceleration decreases proportionally. If the acceleration decreases, the force is smaller.

The second formula suggests that the displacement of an object will vary depending on the initial velocity, the time and the acceleration. If the initial velocity is higher there will be a bigger displacement. If the acceleration is higher the same thing will happen. This is because it acquires a bigger force and therefore is able to fly a bigger distance.


Research Question

How does changing the mass of a spherical object affect the distance of its flight?


Hypothesis

The higher the weight of the object is the shorter will be its flight. This can be proven with the formulas. Firstly, looking at Newton’s Second Law  (F = M × A) if the mass is bigger and the force remains the same all along, the acceleration will have to be smaller. If the acceleration is smaller, it will fly a shorter distance.

Also, if we look at the kinematic equation stated earlier (d = vi × t +1/2 × a ×  t2),  we can see that is the acceleration is lower, because of what we have concluded from the first equation, the resulting displacement must also be lower.

Variables
 
·         Independent: what I will be changing in this experiment is the mass of the plasticine balls that I will use as projectiles. To do this I will do 5 balls of plasticene  with different masses (30g, 40g, 50g, 60g, 70g). We will measure the masses using a scale.

·         Dependent: what will change because of the different mass plasticene balls will be the distance that it will fly. Therefore, what we are measuring in this experiment is the distance in metres. I will measure this with a tape measure.

·         Controlled:
      What must remain unchanged during all the experiment is the force with which I throw the ball with the slingshot. We will achieve this by measuring how much we pull the elastic band of the slingshot.
     I will also not change the shape of the plasticene balls. They will always be spheres as similar to each other as possible.
   Density and gravity will also be the same all along because if we stay in the same classroom and we are not manipulating the air density or the gravity then it will stay the same.


Materials

−        Slingshot (two sticks and one elastic band)
−        Plasticine
−        Scale
−        Tape measure

Method

1.   Break the plasticine in seven parts and shape it into a sphere weigh it on the scale and keep adding more plasticene until it weighs the desired weight (30g, 40g, 50g, 60g, 70g).

2.   Create the slingshot tying two sticks together with an elastic band.

3.   Place the measuring metre on the floor. Extend it until it reaches about 3 metres.

4.   Place one of the plasticene  balls on the elastic band and pull it 5 centimetres. Let the band loose.

5.   Record the distance the projectile has flown.

6.   Repeat the previous steps 4 more times with different mass plasticene  balls (30g, 40g, 50g, 60g, 70g).

    Table

The following table shows how the weight of the plasticene spheres affects the distance they fly, taking into account that the shape and the initial velocity remain the same.

Mass (g)
Distance flown trial 1
Distance flown trial 2
Distance flown trial 3
Distance flown trial 4
Distance flown trial 5
Distance flown Average
5
320
330
320
325
330
325
7
310
325
325
315
300
315
9
380
310
315
310
330
329
11
220
250
220
245
200
227
13
150
130
155
160
145
148

Graph
 



 
Conclusion

As we can see in the results table, the distance flown was smaller the bigger the mass of the plasticine spheres were. With this experiment we also proved the kinematic equation (d = vi × t +1/2 × a ×  t2) because we saw that if the mass was bigger, the smaller the force was and therefore, the less distance the object flew.

However, there was an anomaly: when the mass reached 9 grams, the average distance flown increases unexpectedly, from 315 to 329, and then goes down again to 227 and continues decreasing normally. This could have been caused by the fact that Amaia threw the 9g spheres. This will proably been the cause to this anomaly because the way she threw the spheres with the slingshot was different to the way Marina threw it. A solution to this would have been to let the same person do it all along. 

Evaluation

A possible error that could have altered the results of the experiment would be the angle with which we threw the balls with the slingshot. We didn’t measure the angle we would position the slingshot every time, so it will most probably have varied. This could have affected the results because if we threw it from below, the plasticine spheres will have flown higher and lost energy during the process. The actual distance flown would have probably been shorter.  In the contrary, if the was thrown from above, the spheres would have flown a different distance because they would have hit the floor sooner.

A solution to this problem would be to measure at what distance the slingshot’s rubber bands are being hold tense from our hand before letting go and letting the ball fly. If we made sure this distance was always the same, we would know the angle is always the same and would avoid this error. 

We can also say that the fact that the slingshot was made of pens made it quite unstable. Because of this, we had to redo it various times changing the ways in which it was built (the length of the string, the way it was attached to the pens...), which may have had repercussions in the results. This could have altered the results because the initial force put into the object would have probably varied depending on the composition of the slingshot.

The only solution for this is to make another type of slingshot which is more stable. It would be a good idea to put some more effort into making the slingshot by using to wooden sticks that meet at the bottom to have the real slingshot structure. We also could attach the elastic band to the wooden part by tying a knot. A small piece of leather could also be stuck to the elastic band to make sure it supports the plasticine balls.

In addition, we have to consider that the plasticine balls bounced in different locations each time they were thrown and as we had to work together in order to correctly throw them with the slingshot, we could not see the exact place where they first landed.

In order to solve this, we should either change the technique of the slingshot, so it is easier to use it, or take another type of projectile which doesn't bounce.
If we were to keep the spheres as they were, we could put some paint on them so that the first time it bounces a spot is left on the floor.
Another solution to this last problem could be filming the experiments so that, after, we could see exactly where the balls bounced. Moreover, we could play it as many times as necessary.


References

Teachertech.rice.edu, (2015). Newton's 3 Laws of Motion. [online] Available at: http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law2.html  [Accessed 27 Apr. 2015].

School-for-champions.com, (2015). Force Affects Motion by Ron Kurtus - Succeed in Understanding Physics: School for Champions. [online] Available at: http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/force_motion.htm#.VT3h7yE5_IU  [Accessed 19 Apr. 2015].

Formulas.tutorvista.com, (2015). Projectile Motion Formula | Formula for Projectile Motion | Formulas@TutorVista.com. [online] Available at: http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/projectile-motion-formula.html  [Accessed 20 Apr. 2015].


Physicsclassroom.com, (2015). Kinematic Equations. [online] Available at: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-6/Kinematic-Equations  [Accessed 27 Apr. 2015].



viernes, 20 de marzo de 2015

Lab Session III - Freezing Point Depression

Objective
To investigate the relationship between the molality and the boiling point of a solution.

Hypothesis
In this type of experiments, when we use a solution instead of a pure liquid it is more difficult to form a nice regular structure. For this reason, we must cool the solution to a lower temperature in order for it to freeze. 
In other words, the more solute is added to the solution, the lower the freezing point will be. In this experiment, we are gradually adding grams of sugar to our water-sugar solution. According to the theoretical background, the bigger is the mass of sugar we add to the solution, the lower the freezing point should be.

Results Table 

Mass of sugar in solution
(g)

Molality
(mol/kg)

Attempt 1 - Freezing point (oC)

Attempt 2 - Freezing point (oC)

Average freezing point (oC)
Change in freezing point compared to pure water (oC)
0
0
0
-0.6
-0.3
-0.3
0.5
0,2
-0.6
-0.8
-0.7
-0.7
1.0
0,4
-0.3
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
1.5
0,8
-1.7
-1.7
-1.7
-1.7
2.0
1
-2.0
-2.2
-2.1
-2.1
2.5
1,4
-2.9
-2.5
-2.7
-2.7















Graph


Conclusion
Observing the previous graph we can see that, in most cases, as the molality (mol/kg) increases, the freezing point decreases (ºC). There is only one case in which the freezing point increases as the molality increases: when m= 0,4 and f.p= -0,2. This could be due to an error committed while carrying out the experiment.
Nevertheless, these results match completely with the hypothesis and the theoretical background. According to these, the more solute is added to a solution the more difficult it will be for it to freeze. In other words, the bigger is the molality the more difficult it is for the solution to create a regular structure and therefore it needs to be cooled at a lower temperature.
This is exactly what has happened in this experiment. As we have increased the molality from 0 to 1,4 mol/kg, the freezing point has also gradually decreased from -0,3 to -2,7 ºC. This is clearly observable in the graph above, where the line goes down along the Y axis (freezing point) as we go along the X axis (molality).

Evaluation
The first possible error is that, as we were using an ice bath to cool down the solutions, we weren’t able to control the temperature very well. The temperature varied as the time went onbecuase the ice melted and, consequently, the water started to warm up. A solution to this problem could be to have a separate ice bath for each experiment. This way, we wouldn’t need the ice to be frozen for so long. This would provide us with more controlled temperatures.
Another error that may have occurred is that we didn’t really know when the solution had actually frozen because the thermometer was inside the test tube and as it could move, we thought that it was still liquid. This might have given us unreliable results. A solution to this would be to check if the solution has frozen with a thin and long wooden stick that we could introduce in the test tube.

References
-          Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu,. (2015). Freezing Point Depression in Solutions. Retrieved 21 February 2015, from http://hyperphysics.phy astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/meltpt.html
-          Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu,. (2015). Freezing Point Depression in Solutions. Retrieved 21 February 2015, from
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/meltpt.html

-          Chemistryexplained.com,. (2015). Colligative Properties - Chemistry Encyclopedia - water, uses, examples, gas, number, equation, salt, property. Retrieved 21 February 2015, from http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ce-Co/Colligative-Properties.html

sábado, 21 de febrero de 2015

Lab Session III - Freezing Point Depression


Objective

To investigate the relationship between the molality and the boiling point of a solution.

Hypothesis
In this type of experiments, when we use a solution instead of a pure liquid it is more difficult to form a nice regular structure. For this reason, we must  cool the solution to a lower temperature in order for it to freeze.  


In other words, the more solute is added to the solution, the lower the freezing point will be. In this experiment, we are gradually adding grams of sugar to our water-sugar solution. According to the theoretical background, the bigger is the mass of sugar we add to the solution, the lower the freezing point should be. 


Results Table
Mass of sugar in solution
(g)

Molality
(mol/kg)

Attempt 1 - Freezing point (oC)

Attempt 2 - Freezing point (oC)

Average freezing point (oC)
Change in freezing point compared to pure water (oC)
0
0
0
-0.6
-0.3
-0.3
0.5
0,2
-0.6
-0.8
-0.7
-0.7
1.0
0,4
-0.3
-0.1
-0.2
-0.2
1.5
0,8
-1.7
-1.7
-1.7
-1.7
2.0
1
-2.0
-2.2
-2.1
-2.1
2.5
1,4
-2.9
-2.5
-2.7
-2.7
















Graph







Conclusion 

Observing the previous graph we can see that, in most cases, as the molality (mol/kg) increases, the freezing point decreases (ºC). There is only one case in which the freezing point increases as the molality increases: when m= 0,4 and f.p= -0,2. This could be due to an error committed while carrying out the experiment.

Neverthless, these results match completely with the hypothesis and the theoretical background. According to these, the more solute is added to a solution the more difficult it will be for it to freeze. In other words, the bigger is the molality the more difficult it is for the solution to create a regular structure and therefore it needs to be cooled at a lower temperature.
This is exactly what has happened in this experiment. As we have increased the molality from 0 to 1,4 mol/kg, the freezing point has also gradually descreased from -0,3 to -2,7 ºC. This is clearly observable in the graph above, where the line goes down along the Y axis (freezing point) as we go along the X axis (molality).

Evaluation
The first possible error is that, as we were using an ice bath to cool down the solutions, we weren’t able to control the temperature very well. The temperature varied as the time went onbecuase the ice melted and, consequently, the water started to warm up. A solution to this problem could be to have a separate ice bath for each experiment. This way, we wouldn’t need the ice to be frozen for so long. This would provide us with more controlled temperatures.


Another error that may have occurred is that we didn’t really know when the solution had actually frozen because the thermometer was inside the test tube and as it could move, we thought that it was still liquid. This might have given us unreliable results. A solution to this would be to check if the solution has frozen with a thin and long wooden stick that we could introduce in the test tube. 


References



-          Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu,. (2015). Freezing Point Depression in Solutions. Retrieved 21 February 2015, from http://hyperphysics.phy astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/meltpt.html

-          Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu,. (2015). Freezing Point Depression in Solutions. Retrieved 21 February 2015, from

-          Chemistryexplained.com,. (2015). Colligative Properties - Chemistry Encyclopedia - water, uses, examples, gas, number, equation, salt, property. Retrieved 21 February 2015, from http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Ce-Co/Colligative-Properties.html