Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Key terms defined(efficiency, etc,) in the context with which they will be used. Not stand alone definitions.
Frequently you will use a drawing to help make your ideas more clear.
Relevant background information is provided to help make sense of ideas and future conclusion.
By graphing the efficiency vs. the starting height we will be able to see how this efficiency depends on height. We will also show how
Methods
We
dropped
a
superball
times
from
each
three
height
listed
on
the
data
table.
Each
time
we
measured
the
starting
height
and
the
highest
rebound
point,
based
on
the
bottom
of
the
ball.
We
used
a
meterstick
placed
vertically
on
the
floor
for
our
measurements.
Clearly
defined
sections
to
lab
report.
Key
variables
clearly
shown
on
a
diagram.
Starting
height
hstarting
Nothing fancy, but if it were complicated it might take two diagrams or an explanation of how to get a measurement.
Units. Clear labels on columns. All data shown. Sometimes a number may be so odd that you dont want to include it in your calculated values, but you should still include it in your tables. Frequently the data tables on logger pro get cut off. Make sure your data tables are complete. Even if youre referencing someone elses graphs, you need data tables.
60 80 100 120 150 200 Velocity before impact (m/s) 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.0 4.5 4.9 5.5 6.4
Efficiency
V=
Im not including graphs here because this is a simple word document and I encourage you to use
Logger
Pro
for
your
graphs.
Graphs
should
have
well
labeled
axes
with
units.
Whenever
possible
data
points
should
have
error
bars
showing
your
uncertainty
about
the
data
points.
Dot to dot lines are never appropriate. Instead use trend lines (sometimes curves). Include equations for these lines.
Analysis
The
graph
of
starting
height
vs.
final
height
produced
from
the
data
clearly
shows
a
straight
line
from
the
origin.
The
slope
of
this
graph
0.807
indicates
the
ratio
of
the
heights
which
we
have
shown
is
equivalent
to
the
efficiency.
While
its
calculated
to
three
digits
of
accuracy, this surely overstates our accuracy as I will describe in the next section.
Despite
this
apparently
very
clear
result,
there
are
several
reasons
to
doubt
this
result.
First,
we
made
the
assumption
that
no
energy
was
lost
to
air
resistance.
During
the
bounce
the
ball
may
be
more
efficient
than
80%
and
some
of
this
loss
may
be
due
to
air
resistance.
However,
upon
reflection,
I
think
ignoring
air
resistance
remains
a
good
assumption.
If
air
resistance
was
significant
then
the
higher
drops
should
have
experienced
a
greater
percentage
of
energy
loss.
That
they
didnt,
indicates
that
air
resistance
wasnt
important
and
the
bounce
efficiency
really
was
80%.
(Or
that
there
was
a
big
coincidence
about
factors
exactly
canceling
out.)
More
importantly,
we
only
tested
a
limited
range
of
heights.
We
know
that
eventually
balls
stop
bouncing,
meaning
that
from
some
tiny
drop
height
nothing
happens,
0%
efficiency.
This
probably
happens
when
the
compression
between
molecules
during
the
bounce
is
on
the
same
order
of
magnitude
as
the
random
motion
of
the
molecules
due
to
their
temperature.
We
also
know
that
given
enough
speed
a
superball
will
break
as
the
compressional
forces
exceed
the
intermolecular
forces.
To
improve
this
experiment
it
would
be
good
to
expand
the
range
of
data
collection
to
investigate
this
nonlinear
behavior
and
each
end
of
the
data.
Finally,
while
80%
efficiency
is
probably
a
reasonably
accurate
result,
numerous
measurement
limitations
prevented
us
from
getting
a
more
accurate
answer.
We
estimate
that
we
could
hold
the
ball
at
our
established
drop
height
within
0.2cm
of
accuracy.
Our
bounce
height
measurements
were
not
nearly
as
good
unfortunately.
Sometimes
our
three
watchers
would
disagree
on
a
bounce
height
by
up
to
3
cm,
and
our
multiple
trials
for
one
case
spanned
6
cm
(150
cm
drop
height).
We
indicated
this
uncertainty
with
3
cm
error
bars
on
our
final
height
data.
Since
3cm
represents
a
3%
uncertainty
in
our
median
drop
height
of
100cm,
we
decided
that
our
final
efficiency
values
had
a
3%
uncertainty
and
put
error
bars
of
0.03
on
them.
This
probably
overrepresents
the
uncertainty
of
the
large
drops
and
underrepresents
the
uncertainty
of
the
small
drops,
but
our
graphing
program
has
limited
functionality
for
setting
error
bar
Describe
your
confidence
in
a
general
way.
I
do
this
a
bit
with
the
first
sentence,
and
a
bit
more
with
the
last.
Support your claim of confidence, or lack thereof, by discussing the strengths and weaknesses of your experiment. A range of possible approaches is given on the assignment sheet.
At least two aspects of your error analysis should have a quantitative element. Here Ive described my original uncertainty quantitatively, the size of my error bars quantitatively and how the original uncertainty affected the calculated efficiency value.
size. It also assumes that the large uncertainty in the bounce height makes irrelevant the small uncertainty in the drop height. Our actual calculated efficiencies are all within 3% of 81%, as seen in the fact that the line of best fit passes through the error bars of all of the points. This and the fact that the graph has a y intercept of 0, predicting that 0 drop height would not bounce, add to our confidence in our result of 813% for the efficiency of our superball no matter its drop height.
Error propagation (how original errors affect calculated values) can be a very complicated thing. Im alright with your making some simplifying generalities like I have here.
Your error analysis part is where you can really show off a deep understanding of whats relevant in the lab. Put some thought into it. Show off.
Conclusion
As
discussed
earlier
the
efficiency
of
the
superball
is
approximately
a
constant
80%,
which
is
shown
by
both
a
constant
slope
on
the
height
graph
and
a
constant
efficiency
on
the
second
graph.
Apparently
no
matter
the
amount
of
compression
of
the
ball
during
impact,
the
intermolecular
dampening
and
heat
generation
causes
the
ball
to
lose
about
20%
of
its
energy.
While
this
result
could
be
tested
for
greater
precision
and
accuracy,
I
am
quite
confident
in
the
general
outcome.
Summarize
the
data.
Address/answer
the
question
explicitly.
In
this
case,
the
data
supported
the
conclusion
clearly
and
in
a
straightforward
way.
It
would
have
sounded
silly
to
belabor
it,
but
sometimes
its
complicated
or
ambiguous
and
takes
a
full
paragraph.
When
appropriate,
propose
a
theoretical
explanation
for
your
results.