Anish Bhattacharya

UP101
Experiment 1

COLLISIONS
DISCLAIMER
This is a collision course experiment which is carried out to determine the
effects of various materials on a toy-car, namely spring, magnet, rubber and
clay. The toy-car is held up an inclined ramp and made to slide down and hit
a force sensor. The studs are attached to the sensor. The force sensor
calculates the force exerted on it by the car and sends this analog signal to
an adapter which converts it into digital data which is then analysed in
DataStudio. Furthermore, a photogate is attached to the ramp which reflects
IR laser off the flag on the car, thus calculating the cars speed.
THEORY
Impulse is defined as the integral of force exerted with respect to time. It is
theoretically equal to the change in momentum.

= =

Ideal springs obey Hookes Law, that is for small displacements, the
restoring force exerted by a spring is directly proportional to the expansion
or compression of the spring.
=
If we solve Newtons second law for a mass attached to a spring, we get a
sinusoidal equation of motion
= ( + )
After we replace the spring with a magnetic bumper, the theoretical basis
changes. It turns into an interaction between two magnetic dipoles where
the interactive force falls off as the fourth power of the distance between
the car and the bumper.
The clay bumper stops the car. The rubber one acts as an intermediate
option.
Errors in the experiment may arise from non-idealness of apparatus and
the fact that we neglect friction and air-drag.
GRAPHS AND CALCULATIONS
Mass of the car + flag = 267.391 grams
 Momentum, p = Area
Velocity, v
mv Change in under
Initial (ms-1) Percentage
(kgms-1) momentu curve of
Position Difference
m graph =
S. No. of
p = pf Impulse
releasing Initial, Initial, Final, =100*(J -
Final, vf pi of force,
cart vi pi pf |p|)/J
(Ns) J
(Ns)
Graph 80 cm
0.562 -0.490 0.150 -0.131 -0.281 0.30 6.33%
#1 mark
Graph 80 cm
0.546 -0.518 0.146 -0.139 -0.285 0.29 1.7%
#2 mark
Graph 80 cm
0.521 0.000 0.139 0.000 -0.139 0.16 13.125%
#3 mark
Graph 80 cm
0.575 -0.301 0.135 -0.065 -0.235 0.25 6%
#4 mark

Theoretically, the impulse generated in the force sensor should equal the
change in momentum of the car. But we notice percentage errors in our
analysis.
Plausible reasons are:
1. Friction between the wheels of the car and the track of the ramp
leads to dissipation of energy.
2. Air drag causes the same thing.
3. A fraction of kinetic energy of the car is converted to vibrations of the
bumpers. Notice that since there is zero contact in the magnet case,
the error is minimum. But clay and rubber are less elastic and thus
absorb a lot of kinetic energy. Thats why the error blows up in cases
3 and 4.

CALCULATION OF SPRING CONSTANT

Case I
The cart is manually pushed against the force sensor and the displacement
along the scale is noted. The force sensor data and the compression data is
used to calculate the spring constant.
Spring
Initial Final Reading Mean
Compression Constant
S.No. reading on on scale, xf force, F
x=xf-xi (m) K= F/x
scale, xi (m) (m) (N)
(Nm-1)
1 0.954 0.962 13.15 0.008 1643.75

2 0.954 0.970 25.72 0.016 1607.50

3 0.954 0.975 34.18 0.021 1621.62

4872.87
Kmean = (K1 + K2 + K3)/3 = = 1624.29 Nm-1
3

Case II
The spring constant can also be evaluated by using the time period of
oscillation of the spring while the cart is in contact with it. It is given by,
4 2
=
2
Where,
m = mass of cart
T = time period of oscillation of spring
1
The time of contact, t = ( )
2

Spring
constant
Time of contact
Initial time, ti Final Time, tf 2
S.No. t = tf ti = 2
(s) (s)
(s)
(Nm )
-1

1 0.1213 0.1627 0.0414 1538.63

2 0.1059 0.1469 0.0410 1568.80
3 0.0961 0.1371 0.0410 1568.80
4676.23
Kmean = (K1 + K2 + K3)/3 = = 1558.74 Nm-1
3

In case II the value of the spring constant is obtained with an error of merely
4.035% compared to case I.

Case III

We try to fit a curve of the form = sin( + ) onto the force vs time

obtained and thus we try to find the spring constant.
Where,
K is the spring constant
m = 0.2674 kg
 a and c are arbitrary constants
Non-linear fit of dataset: Table1_Force (N), using function: y = a*sin(sqrt(k/0.2674)*x + c)

Y standard errors: Unknown

Scaled Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm with tolerance = 0.0001

From x = 0.0961 to x = 0.1371

a = -12.4561829771881 +/- 0.100082424577795

k = 1,619.18262812515 +/- 21.8564635957583

c = 14.5539585370591 +/- 0.0621036959631925

Chi^2 = 169.812642199557

R^2 = 0.950759442625088

We see that the spring constant calculated in case III agrees with our
experimental value found in case I. The percentage difference between the

2 values is merely 0.31%.

Theoretical and Experimental ratio of the clay and magnet cases
Since with clay, the collision turns out to be perfectly inelastic i.e. the cart
sticks to the clay bumper on the sensor after collision, and the magnetic
collision is nearly elastic, we would expect the respective impulses to be in
the ratio 1:2. As we can see from Table #1, the ratio of p values for clay
and magnet (Graph #3 and graph #2 respectively) comes out to be 0.55
which agrees with the theoretical value within experimental errors.
In our daily life, we know that we have to deliver a quick blow to break
things. The force we apply is not constant. Why is it easier to break things
this way as compared to applying a force which increases steadily?
Consider a block of wood. When a force is applied and gradually increased,
the block always has time to attain an equilibrium position and thus the
breakage is dependent entirely on the tensile strength of the block of wood.
Furthermore, this predominantly leads to bending rather than breaking.
On the other hand, when a quick blow is applied on the block, there isnt
sufficient time for it to attain an equilibrium state and the block has a
higher tendency to break as opposed to bending.
The rate of change of force is called yank and the rate of change of
acceleration, jerk. In which of the four cases do we have the highest yank?
Why?
We observe that the rate of change of force varies as
Rubber>Clay>Spring>Magnet.
The Rubber collision has the maximum yank, in the order of 10^4. This is
because in the other cases, the exist factors that reduce the rate of change
of force.
Magnets: The magnets start repelling each other much before the collision
is about to occur, and the cart stops before the collision happens.
Clay: The clay gets deformed at the time of collision and the compresses
clay acts as a cushion for reducing the rate of change of force.
Spring: The compression in the spring is gradual and thus the rate of
change of force is reduced.
Thus, the rubber bumper naturally leads to a higher yank.
MY QUESTION
In the first case, after the mass leaves the spring, the spring undergoes an
oscillation decay due to two factors
1. Damping
2. Loss of mass. Because initially the effective mass was the sum of the
mass of the car and one-third the mass of the spring. But now its just
one-third the mass of the spring.

How do we interpret both of them together?