ENERGY – LAB WORKSHEET

Name:
NamTran
Partners: Robert Teddy Jake
Nitta Jabbarzadeh
TA:

OBJECTIVE

Toinvestigatewhether or notenergyis conserved intwo simple mechanical systems an

oscillatingmass on aspring and a basketball shot introduction
DATA
Experiment #1 – Harmonic oscillator Experiment #2 – Basketball shot

Hanging mass 550 g Mass of basketball 0.62 kg

Equilibrium position (heq )

0.3941 m Slope of K vs. y
5.94
Amplitude
0.0269 m Uncertainty of K vs. y slope
OB

41 1.542
Slope of Etot vs. t Slope of Etot vs. t
1.19 10
Uncertainty of Etot vs. t slope
6 51 10581
Uncertainty of Etot vs. t slope
0.20
1. Go back and label all values in the table with units. The units for the slopes of the graphs are
especially important to carry into your calculations.

2. Why does the total energy appear to oscillate slightly? Explain your reasoning in the Discussion &
Conclusion. Refer to p. 2 of the lab manual for a hint.
change in gravitational PE
3. Why should you expect the slope of your Etot vs. t graph to be negative? Explain your reasoning in

the force
the Discussion & Conclusion.
because
it acting against
islaw of energy conservation? Explain your reasoning
4. How well does the collected data demonstrate the

thecamera bitty
in the Discussion & Conclusion.
cause the gavalreto
5. Use the slope of your K vs. y graph along with Eq. (8) to calculate the gravitational acceleration g.
Show your work with units. be
in a seat
ke ngy
g
ga tm
g 5.941
Idg 5
1
9.58 me
 Discussion & Conclusion

1. Rephrase the objectives of the lab.

2. Describe the procedure of the lab. Explain the concept of Conservation of Mechanical Energy.
3. Discuss the results of ALL the experiments. Make sure to discuss both the results for acceleration due to gravity
and whether the total energy conserves or not for ALL the experiments.
4. Explain how your experimental results show proves of the theoretical concepts. Discuss all possible sources of
errors.
5. Conclude whether or not the objectives of the experiments were met or not.

This lab's goal was to determine whether or not energy is conserved in two
straightforward mechanical systems. This contains a basketball shot and an
oscillating mass on a spring.

We began by hanging a 500 g mass from a hanger to let it reach balance. The
data was then plotted into capstone on a graph after we had captured its
equilibrium state for seven seconds. Next, we used a basketball in projectile
motion to con rm the conservation of energy. When only conservative forces are
at work, the overall mechanical system essentially stays constant. This is known
as conservation of mechanical energy. In order to visualize the projectile motion
during this lab, we viewed a video of the basketball and plotted data points at
regular intervals. After locating the most logical area of the graph and tting the
slope linearly, we were able to get the gravitational acceleration.

The acceleration owing to the restoring force F would decrease if the mass of an
oscillating spring system with a given k were raised because the added mass
would produce more inertia. As a result, the frequency will drop and the
oscillation period will prolong.

The pressure of the air surrounding a basketball rises with depth. This indicates
that the air above the ball pushes down more forcefully than the air below it does.
The basketball experiences an upward buoyant force as a result of the pressure
di erence. A basketball is pushed back up o the ground by the compressed air
inside of it; but, gravity and air friction around it work against this upward motion
and draw the ball back down.

Reading the extended length of the spring is the main source of mistake in this
experiment's oscillating spring mechanism. At eye level and just across from the
pointer, the meter rule scale should be read. The angle of the shot, the speed of
the shot, the height of the shot, and the trajectory of the basketball under the
impact of wind direction and speed are the primary variables a ecting the
shooting rate in the basketball experiment.

The objective of this lab was de nitely met because we were able to see that the
energy was conserved in mechanical systems of an oscillating mass on a spring
and a basketball shot. Furthermore, we backed up our data using capstone and
saw that our graphs were closely accurate 9.58 m/s^2 to 9.81 m/s^2.