Energy Equivalence practical Aim To find the effect of changing distance and therefore changing potential gravitational energy

on kinetic energy Hypothesis Kinetic energy of the hanger will depend on the mass of the glider and the distance the glider is away from the pulley. Formulae:

This hypothesis was chosen as it was relevant; by choosing this hypothesis we will be able to test the aim of this experiment, also this is what we predicted would happen. As we knew the true value of this experiment, we would be able to test how accurate our results were also using this hypothesis. Variables The independent variable for this experiment was the distance the glider was moved away from the pulley. This was varied by moving the glider back by 10 cm every time. The dependant variable in this experiment was the speed it took for the glider to reach the pulley, or velocity. This was measured by the smart pulley which was placed at either end of the track and recorded the times. This was measured in metres per second. Controlled variables: 1. The mass of the hanger 2. The mass of the glider 3. The conditions the experiment was performed in (e.g. inside) 4. The temperature the experiment was performed in (room temp) These variables were controlled by when designing the experiments method to account for these controls and when completing the experiment following the method exactly. The mass of the hanger and glider was not changed throughout the experiment; the conditions and temperature were also the same each time. Method Apparatus: Air track Glider and hanger String Weights

Electrical balance Ruler Smart pulley system Computer Diagram:

1. The air track system was turned on. 2. The hanger had weights added onto it until it measured to 0.1 kg on the electrical balance 3. The glider had weights added onto it until it measured 0.143 kg on the electrical balance 4. The string was then attached to the hanger and the glider at approximately 80 cms amount. 5. The hanger was placed hanging off the bottom of the air track and the glider was placed on the air track, this was set up to reduce random error of us timing it. 6. The glider was measured 10 cm away from the pulley and placed at this point. 7. The smart pulley system was set up on the beginning and the end of the track and connected to the computer. 8. The glider was let go and its velocity was measured and recorded into our books. 9. steps 1 to 8 were repeated 5 times 10. steps 1 to 9 were then repeated 5 times but the 10 cms was added on to the distance each time Safety assessment Potential Risk The glider could fling off the air track Precautions taken Safe amounts of weighs were placed in each the glider and the hanger to ensure high speeds that could result in uncontrollable movements were controlled. Students were told to stand away from the air track. Safe amounts of weights were placed in the glider and the hanger. Students were Actions taken if risk were to happen The teacher would be told, students may be sent to the school nurse, and the risk was reassessed and controlled.

Weights in the glider and hanger could fall out and hit people

The teacher would be told, students may be sent to the school nurse, and the risk was

told to stand away from the air track.

reassessed and controlled.

Results Observations: As the distance between the glider and the pulley was lessened the faster the glider took to hit the pulley. Results for original times on the hanger and glider Distance Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity (cm) 1 (m/s) 2 (m/s) 3 (m/s) 4 (m/s) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.68 1.11 1.42 1.65 1.86 2.14 2.20 0.68 1.11 1.42 1.65 1.87 2.17 2.23 0.70 1.11 1.41 1.65 1.87 2.13 2.25 0.69 1.11 1.42 1.65 1.88 2.05 2.23 Velocity 5 (m/s) 0.69 1.10 1.40 1.65 1.88 2.03 2.20 Velocity average (m/s) 0.682 1.108 1.416 1.65 1.872 2.104 2.218

1/2mv (kinetic energy, joules) 10 cm: 0.0467 20 cm: 0.13462 30 cm: 0.2436 40 cm: 0.33078 50 cm: 0.42578 60 cm: 0.53785 70 cm: 0.59772 Graph Graph is attached! When numbers were placed into the calculator the following values were found. r= 0.997: there was minimal random error in this experiment, high reliability. Slope= 1.0569; the theoretical slope of this line should be equal to 0.98, the value found was relatively close to the true value inferring there was high precision in this experiment. Analysis Our hypothesis was supported that the kinetic energy of the hanger will depend on the distance the glider is away from the pulley. This shows that if you increase the hangers or theoretically an objects gravitational potential energy, its potential amount of kinetic energy increases. Diagram below:

Viewing the graph and reading the results it was evident that as the distance between the glider and the pulley increased the longer it took for the glider to reach the pulley but the more amount of kinetic energy it had. This was represented on the graph by the line of best fit which showed a straight diagonal line moving up. Evaluation Random Errors; In this experiment there were minimal random errors that occurred, and therefore a high reliability. The following random errors that may have occurred are below; Errors of parallax: when measuring how far the glider was to the pulley as we were using a ruler we may have read the numbers wrong causing all the numbers to be too high or too low. Reaction times: Reaction times in this experiment were very well controlled to lessen the random errors as we had the smart pulley which electronically accounted for the velocities at which the glider hit the pulley. Air currents: this was also very controlled as we completed the experiment inside where there would be little or no air currents that could affect the results. Friction: On the air track as it is not completely a vacuum the glider may be affected by some friction making the values too high or too low. Discussed whether systematic error was apparent validity of the method Systematic errors There were minimal systematic errors that occurred in this investigation which was found through using the calculator and finding the value of b. This means the validity of this experiment was high and the experimental design was sufficient in proving our hypothesis. However some errors of calibration may have occurred. This could be when measuring the weights on the electrical balance, a student could have incorrectly zeroed the weight and all the numbers will be out by the same amount. The rulers measurements could be too low or too high resulting in the measurements being too high and too low. Improvements Improvements that could be made to the experimental method were minimal as there was little random error and systematic error that occurred. The random error of air currents could have been better controlled if the experiment was completed in a proper laboratory that would not be affected at all by this. The distance how far away the glider was from the hanger could be electronically measured to ensure it would not be affected by random or systematic errors. Friction on the air track could be made better if the experiment was completed on an air track that was powerful enough to let the glider hover enough off the track to not be influenced by any friction. Suggestions for further inquiry if relevant

In this experiment we could not also test how changing the mass of the glider would affect the experiment, so as a follow up we could also see the effect of this. Also we could the same experiment as described above much increase the sample size to reduce random error and compare results to see if the experimental design was supported. Also we could do it on different equipment which could not be effect by factors such as wind and friction which would more reliably test our results. Conclusion In conclusion our experiment supported our hypothesis that kinetic energy of the hanger will depend on the distance the glider is away from the pulley. There was a little amount of random errors and systematic errors that occurred in this experiment.