Day 24: Revised Lab Procedure and Future Project Brainstorming

By -
The team brainstormed ideas for the next projects such as what to do for the friction track. We decided instead of revising the entire lab for calculating different coefficients of friction, we can make improvements on the current experiment and equipment used. For instance, the team will create new surface plates that will screw on to the existing platform. These new plates will act as an interchangeable and easily replaceable part, remedying the problem with the current platform where the surface was being damage over time thus creating a source of error in the experiment. Our proposed simple fix will save the college both time and money in the event that one of the platform surfaces needs to be replaced.

We also changed some formatting in the lab procedure such as moving icons to look much more aesthetic. We did this by playing around with the image text wrap format and changing it to wrap to text with 0'' margins. An example is shown below.

Figure 1: Revised Lab Procedure

While the icon reformatting is a small change, it does make a big difference in the overall appeal of the page (if there is any). Beforehand, some parts of the page had a large space above or below it due to the icons not fitting correctly. With the new fix, we managed to get evenly distributed line spacing.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Day 40: Analyzing Conservation of Momentum videos

By -
At 1 pm, the team attended the 3SP meeting today. After returning to the office an hour later, the team began to analyze the videos for the Conservation of Linear Momentum experiment recorded last Monday, July 23rd. Since the free software trial expired on both member's personal computer, they set up the software on mentor Dr. Epstein's office computer. They were able to analyze one of the slow-motion videos of the colliding gliders. It was confirmed that using the software is indeed a better way to produce the expected results. As claimed, the initial velocity of glider 1 was approximately equivalent to the final velocity of glider 2 after the collision:    Pᵢ = P f         (initial momentum = final momentum) ∴   m v ᵢ = m v f   ∴ v ᵢ =  v f          (when masses of both the gliders are equivalent) Meanwhile, progress is being made on the presentation for 3SP meeting on Thursday. It is almost done,...
Read more

Day 15: Drag Calculation + Progress on Manual

By -
Image
Day 15:  Drag Calculation + Progress on Manual After watching (and for Jan Mark, participating in) the afternoon presentations, we worked on 2 projects.  We are nearly done editing the experimental procedure section of our lab manual write-up of the Free-Fall experiment.  The complete write-up should be ready by early next week so that we can get volunteers to try the experiment. We were also able to use the ping pong ball data to calculate the drag coefficient, C, for a ping pong ball. Ping Pong ball data When air resistance is taken into account, the equation for acceleration of a falling body becomes: where ρ air is the density of air, A is the cross sectional area of the falling object and v is its instantaneous velocity. By plotting a vs the velocity squared, C can be derived from the slope. For typical falling objects, the range of C values is from 0.4 to 1. This graph is seen (will be inserted) below and the calculations give: Givin...
Read more

Day 7: Microsoft Excel

By -
Image
The last videos were analyzed using PASCO Capstone. We notice inconsistence in g values for different masses. Thus, we plan to study the results for particular masses by performing additional trials on Monday. Image 1 displays a screenshot of a table in Excel. The table mentions the object's (ball's) type including lead, steel, golf, wood, and hollow plastic toy ball corresponding to it's experimental gravitational acceleration value.  Image 1 . Screenshot of Excel Table The first graph, Figure 1, was created using Microsoft Excel. It displays data with the relationship between gravitational acceleration and mass of lead, steel, wood, golf, and hollow plastic toy ball.  Figure 1. Gravitational Acceleration vs Mass of Various Balls. As described in yesterday's blog, we measured the effect of dropping the ball not even with the meter stick. Figure 2 presents the second graph created on Microsoft Excel. Our data for the steel ball is exhibited below. Neg...
Read more