Evan Alvarado Cody Hess Steven Sims Period 3 April 18, 2005

TREBUCHET LAB REPORT

Abstract/Hypothesis: The aim of this project was for us students to apply our physics and mathematics knowledge into building a working trebuchet. Our group wanted to build a strong and steady trebuchet that threw objects as far as possible. We guessed that the more counterweight we added to the trebuchet, the farther the object would be thrown. We also figured the same with the arm and sling: the bigger it is, the further itll go. Experimental Methods/Procedures: We used tennis balls as the thrown objects in the beginning. To start out, we threw a tennis ball with no counterweight. We then added weight little by little to see the result. The results were inconsistent because some of the times, the balls would shoot backwards. We guessed it was because the ball left the sling too soon. Towards the end we changed the thrown object to tennis balls and baseballs. The pin at the end of the throwing arm could of also contributed to the inconsistency. We had it at a 75 degree angle, but the nail was loose, so it mightve spun around when it was thrown. The date collected of each throw is shown below. Data Collection:
counterweight (lbs) 18 23 23 26 distance (yds) 15 12 14 15

Seeing as how two times we used the same weight, and the results were a two yard difference, our trebuchet wasnt very consistent. Sometimes the ball would be thrown backwards, but we didnt show that because we didnt want negative distance.

Evan Alvarado Cody Hess Steven Sims Period 3 April 18, 2005 Interpretation: Trebuchet
Distance (yds) 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 Counterweight (lbs) y = 0.1333x2 - 5.8667x + 77.4 2 R = 0.6667 distance (yds) Poly. (distance (yds))

3rd Degree Polynomial Trebuchet

Distance (yds) 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 Counterweight (lbs) Linear (distance (yds)) distance (yds) y = -0.0606x + 15.364 R2 = 0.0202

Linear As you can see, the 3rd Degree Polynomial graph showed a little more correlation of distance to counterweight opposed to the Linear graph. We couldve had much more consistency and a stronger correlation if we designed a few parts a little better. For one, our box was lopsided and the counterweight inside the box would shift from side to side. The throwing arm was also kind of shaky, it wasnt supported well at the axle. The pin at the end of the throwing arm could of also contributed to the inconsistency. We had it at a 75 degree angle, but the nail was loose, so it mightve spun around when it was thrown. We werent sure if it mattered if we had the eyehook on the throwing arm on either side of the other eyehook as part of the launching mechanism. The arm mightve possibly thrown the object a little to the left or right depending the side of the eyehook it was on. Some of the times we mightve not placed the ball inside the sling well, considering it shot off too early and flew backwards.

Evan Alvarado Cody Hess Steven Sims Period 3 April 18, 2005 Conclusion: All in all, our trebuchet was decent. It didnt go as far as we expected, but it still threw a decent amount. It was inconsistent most of the time, and that was explained earlier. If we were to put more time into the design of the trebuchet, I think it wouldve turned out much better. We werent organized with the amount of supplies we needed, considering we had to go back to Lowes, but we just assumed we got the right amount. And with the absence of some parts that we did not buy, our trebuchet wasnt as sturdy as we hoped, was a little shaky, and inconsistent.