Extracts from this essay...

Introduction

Factors affecting the speed of a trolleycoae ae" . "r se" . ae . "ae" . "w or". ae . " " . ae . "k inae foae " . ae . ". Travelling down a ramp Factors such as; type of surface of ramp, height of ramp, weight/mass of trolley and the gradient or angle of a ramp all affect the speed of a trolley as it travels down a ramp. For instance a trolley may accelerate faster down a ramp on smooth wood rather than on carpet because carpet might provide greater friction for the tyres rather than the smooth wood. Out of all these factors, I am going to pick just 1 factor and alter it 5 different times, doing 3 trials for each time. We have also done some preliminary work on ticker - timers, so in my investigation I am going to expand on the notion of ticker - timers and incorporate my knowledge of ticker - timers in to this investigation. Aim: To investigate the relationship between the speed of the trolley as it travels down the ramp and the gradient of the ramp.coed ed" . "r se" . ed . "ed" . "w or". ed . " " . ed . "k ined foed " . ed . ": Hypothesis: I believe that the speed of the trolley travelling down the ramp will increase as the gradient of the ramp is increased. This is because of several different factors. One of these factors is Potential energy. Potential energy is stored energy possessed by a system as a result of the relative positions of the components of that particular system. In this case, it is a trolley that is held at the top of the ramp, which is above the ground; the trolley and the earth possess a certain amount of potential energy. In this experiment we are focusing on a particular type of potential energy, gravitational energy.

Middle

If you divide the potential energy at 16cm by the potential energy at 32 cm the answer is also 2. This trends/patterns follow right through the sequence not just for the examples I have given you. My results gives a clear indication that at an increase in gradient, means that the trolley will be accelerating more and reaching the ground more quickly. The speed of the trolley is very interesting, as I predicted the higher the height the faster the speed but towards the end of my graph the speed starts to reach a terminal speed, a constant value. Looking at my bar graph, this is a clear indication on how quickly the speed decreases when the height increases. The potential energy graph, was the graph with most stability as the line of best fit nearly matched the normal line. In the acceleration and the kinetic energy graphs the line of best fit was very similar with the normal line whilst in the speed graph, there was no stability because of the terminal speed towards the end. My results were reliable and there were no anomalous results. If you had to be precise than maybe the 1st attempt of 16cm was a little bit inaccurate and also the 1st Attempt of 32cm was also a little bit inaccurate. In my table I have calculated acceleration, but this calculation is wrong, and the only way to find acceleration is to use the ticker timer (in method.) Acceleration calculations are wrong and this is noted on the result table. I only found out after I did my results table that acceleration cannot be calculated without a ticker - timer. Evaluation I have enjoyed doing this experiment, this experiment has vastly improved my research skills with using books from the library and using the Internet more efficiently. This experiment has made me think about all the factors of an investigation not just the prediction, method and results. With any school experiment, the experiment is not 100% fair.

Conclusion

Reading 1 Reading 2 Reading 3 Average Average Speed (cm/s) 12 1.011 1.078 1.007 1.032 67.83 14 0.913 0.905 0.936 0.918 76.25 16 0.818 0.847 0.835 0.833 84.00 I feel that overall the results were quite accurate. This is can be seen when looking at the graphs, which show a straight line with all of the points apart from one or a few being very close to or on that line. The reasons for these few inaccurate results may have been as followed: * The trolley may have been pushed slightly at the beginning therefore giving it an advantage. * The apparatus might not have been set up correctly meaning that results could have been abnormal. * The height of the trolley might not have been measured correctly and therefore, with a greater height, the trolley would have gone faster with a lower time. As there were only three anomalies, I can say that the results obtained are reliable to the extent that a clear conclusion can be made from them. I believe that the results obtained do strongly support my conclusion and that further results do not need to be taken apart from the three anomalies which should be repeated. Further work: In addition to the experiment, further work does not need to be done. However to obtain more evidence to support my predictions and possibly to make another prediction, I would also vary another variable. The variable I would choose to vary would add a weight to the trolley pulling it down the ramp. This would speed it up and I would vary the amount of weights. To obtain good results I would drop the weight down onto the floor from a string attached to the trolley with the help of a pulley. With more weights, I would predict that the trolley would go faster down the slope and therefore there would be a lower time. suhura. Thus, we can say that whilst this represents a progression, in the end we have come no closer to any "real" knowledge. this coursework was downloaded from Coursework.info. Redistribution prohib