36
Photogate Timer
012-06379B
®
Table 8.2
d = 100 cm
h = 2.6 cm
D = 80 cm
L = 12.6 cm
θ
= 0.026 rad
m
t
1
t
2
v
1
v
2
E
k1
E
k2
E
k2
-E
k1
ΔΔΔΔΔ
(mgh)
% Error
(g)
(s)
(s)
(m/s)
(m/s)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(J)
(%)
180.2
0.25
0.16
0.51
0.80
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.04
5.67
220.2
0.25
0.16
0.51
0.80
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.04
7.32
261.6
0.25
0.16
0.51
0.80
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.05
5.16
h
Yes. The experiemental data indicated that potential
energy was consitently transformed into kinetic enery.
There was however a loss of 5% to 7% in energy . This
is attributed to experiemental error as well measurement
as loss of energy due to friction between gliders and air
track.
Figure 9.1 Spring Constant
Notes - on Analysis
The results of the each portion of the experiement is pre-
sented to the right.
Table 9.2 Potential Energy vs. Kinetic Energy of Spring Mass System
X
1
= 104.2 cm
K = 7.52 N/m
Flag Width = 3.8 cm
m
Spring Stretch
t
avg
v
avg
K.E.
P.E.
% Error
(g)
(cm)
(s)
(m/s)
(J)
(J)
(%)
211.5
5
0.13
0.29
0.01
0.01
4.6
211.5
10
0.06
0.60
0.04
0.04
0.0
211.5
15
0.04
0.88
0.08
0.08
3.3
211.5
20
0.03
1.18
0.15
0.15
1.9
231.5
5
0.13
0.29
0.01
0.01
-3.7
231.5
10
0.07
0.57
0.04
0.04
0.0
231.5
15
0.04
0.86
0.09
0.08
0.0
231.5
20
0.03
1.13
0.15
0.15
1.9
Exp 9 - Elastic-Kinetic Energy
