COLLISIONS

UP 101L Assignment 1

Submitted by
ARCHISMAN PANIGRAHI

11-01-00-10-91-17-1-14503
Lab Group C
2017
 The mass of the car + optical blocker system is 0.2673 .
The total impulse of the force and the change of momentum are calculated in the
following table.

Magnitude
Impulse Initial Final Percentage
Magnitude of change
of Force velocity Velocity difference of
of change of
Impulse of Force
of velocity momentum Mean
and
Bumper Run (Upward) (Upward) (Upward) percentage
Change of
Type v Momentum difference
= = = 0.2673
= ( ) 100/
(. ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) (. )
Spring 19 0.26 0.455 0.394 0.849 0.227 12.69
Spring 20 0.29 0.532 0.457 0.989 0.264 8.97 8.55
Spring 21 0.32 0.592 0.513 1.105 0.295 7.81
Spring 22 0.34 0.649 0.562 1.211 0.324 4.71
Magnet 6 0.25 0.455 0.422 0.877 0.234 6.4
Magnet 7 0.26 0.467 0.431 0.898 0.24 7.69 6.66
Magnet 8 0.25 0.452 0.424 0.876 0.234 6.4
Magnet 9 0.26 0.472 0.441 0.913 0.244 6.15
Clay 11 0.15 0.461 0 0.461 0.123 18
Clay 12 0.19 0.571 0 0.571 0.153 19.47 18.81
Clay 13 0.23 0.719 0 0.719 0.192 16.52
Clay 14 0.16 0.472 0 0.472 0.126 21.25
Rubber 15 0.28 0.575 0.301 0.876 0.234 16.43
Rubber 16 0.25 0.505 0.242 0.747 0.2 20 16.24
Rubber 17 0.29 0.588 0.329 0.917 0.245 15.52
Rubber 18 0.3 0.625 0.353 0.978 0.261 13

The percentage difference between Impulse of force and change of momentum are
shown in the table. Theoretically, these should be same. However, there is a distance
between photogate and the force sensor. Thus,
1) frictional force is mainly responsible for this difference.
2) Also, some kinetic energy of the car is being transferred to the energy of
oscillation of the spring, magnet, clay or rubber, so the change of momentum is
not equal to the impulse of the force.
It is worthwhile to note that the percentage difference is highest when clay or rubber
is used, i.e. when a major portion of the kinetic energy is being absorbed.

1
 Direct evaluation of spring constant
The cart is pushed against the spring and both the force (the mean force is evaluated
with DataStudio software) and the compression of the spring are noted. From these,
the spring constant is evaluated.
Initial Final Spring
No. of Reading Reading Mean Force Compression constant
observation = = /
() () () () (1 )
1 0.954 0.96 8.56 0.006 1426.67
2 0.954 0.962 13.21 0.008 1651.25
3 0.954 0.965 14.82 0.011 1347.27
4 0.954 0.97 25.78 0.016 1611.25
5 0.954 0.975 34.34 0.021 1635.24

7671.68
Thus, the average value of spring constant is, 1 = 1534.34 1
5

Evaluation of spring constant from period of

oscillation
The period of oscillation of a block of mass attached to a spring (of negligible mass

compared to the block) of spring constant is = 2 . The time of contact

between the spring and the car is half of this period of oscillation. Let be this time of
contact.
2
Thus, = , therefore = . This is evaluated with DataStudio software and
2
the spring constant is evaluated in the following table.
Initial Final Time Spring
Time Time interval constant
Run 2
1 2 = 2 1 =
2
1
() () () ( )
19 0.1213 0.1627 0.0414 1538.63
20 0.1059 0.1469 0.041 1568.80
21 0.0961 0.1371 0.041 1568.80
22 0.0884 0.1298 0.0414 1538.63
6214.86
Thus, mean value of spring constant = 1 = 1553.72 1 . Thus, the
4
value almost matches with the experimental value with percentage of error = 1.26%.
2
 Evaluation of spring constant by fitting the
curve with software
The software SciDAVis is used to fit the force-time graph to the equation

= sin( + ), and the spring constant is evaluated.
0.2673

Run Spring constant

(1 )
19 1602.60
20 1615.40
21 1619.18
22 1633.29

Thus, the average spring constant is 1617.59 1 . The percentage difference from
the experimental value is 5.43%. However this quite close to the number of
observations 2, 4, 5 of the direct evaluation of spring constant.
The reason of error is that, the software tries to fit all points in the curve, and as a
result, does not exactly consider the the beginning and end of the time when the car
touched the spring, the difference between which is theoretically, half of the period of
oscillation of the spring car system.

Theoretical and experimental ratio of momentum in

case of clay and magnet
The theoretically expected ratio of impulse from the clay and that due to the magnet
is 0.5 (Since the collision is perfectly elastic in case of ideal magnet and perfectly
inelastic in case of clay).
In run 6 and run 11, magnet and clay were used respectively and the car was released
from 60 cm mark.
In case of magnet (run 6) the impulse is 0.25 . and in case of clay (run 11) it is
0.15 .
0.15
So, the experimental ratio is = 0.6
0.25

3
 Rate of change of force
1. When force is applied on a body, elastic waves (longitudinal and shear waves) carry
the information that the force is applied and the body gets deformed. The speed of
these waves depends on the material of the body and not on the applied force. So,
when the rate of change of force (yank) is very high, excess force is applied before the
body can withstand it by getting compressed. That is why, the body breaks.
2. The yank is in the following order Rubber > Clay > Spring > Magnet
Since yank = /, the yank is highest when the derivative of force w.r.t time is
highest i.e., when the magnitude of the slope of the curve is highest.

My questions
Why is not the ratio of the impulse in case of clay and magnet is 0.6? The error
from theoretical value (0.5) is 20%.
Why did the change of momentum and impulse differ by 15-20% when rubber
and clay are used? Even in inelastic collisions, momentum is conserved.
The factors neglected in this experiment are
1. The change of speed due to friction is being neglected
2. The energy of oscillation of spring, magnet, clay or rubber is being neglected.
3. There is a significant distance between the photogate and the force sensor.
If they were close, the effect of friction would decrease.
Ways of extending the experiment
1. We can keep track of the position from which the car is released. We can
calculate the final position of the car when it stops. From this distance, we
can calculate the change in gravitational potential energy of the car.
(i) From this, we can get an estimate of the frictional energy loss due to
friction, inelastic collision and oscillation of springs etc.
(ii) We can also compare this to the change in kinetic energy obtained from
initial and final velocity.
(iii) We can calculate the coefficient of rolling friction.
2. The period of oscillation of the spring after the car get detached from will be,

, where is the mass of the spring, is the spring constant and the

constant can be numerically determined from the graph. So, we can obtain
a formula for period of oscillation of a spring with finite mass, to which no
other mass is attached.
4