Conservation of

Energy

1
To Nature nothing can be added; from Nature
nothing can be taken away; the sum of her
energies is constant, and the utmost man can
do in the pursuit of physical truth, or in the
applications of physical knowledge, is to shift
the constituents of the never-varying total

- John
Tyndall

2
 Abstract

In this lab experiment, the proponents examined the conservation of mechanical energy in several simple
mechanical systems. Specifically, spring potential energy and gravitational potential energy were
investigated. In order to test the conservation of energy, two setups were prepared: one to determine the
spring constant and spring potential energy and another one to determine the gravitational potential energy.
The materials used were a PAScar, a pulley with clamp, a base and support rod, a mass balance, a
dynamics track, a mass hanger, and a mass set. By comparing spring potential energy and gravitational
potential energy for three trials in the second setup, it was calculated that the percent difference between
the two are 199.63% ± 2%, 156.47% ± 2%, and 152.64% ± 2%, for trials 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Not
accounting for negligible non-conservative forces, the theoretical calculations and experimental results were
comparable in value. Discrepancies in the values can be attributed to uncertainties in measurements and
external forces acting on the system .
Introduction

According to Serway and Faughn (2016), “the conservation of

energy is a fundamental concept of physics that essentially
states that the amount of energy remains constant and energy
is neither created nor destroyed, within some problem domain”.
In mechanics, it likely that a problem will be encountered
containing kinetic energy, gravitational potential energy, and
elastic spring potential energy.

This laboratory experiment will be conducted to explore, veryify,

and apply this concept of conservation of energy, specifically
mechanical energy.
 Materials and Methods

Prepare
Materials
Prepare a PAScar, a pulley with clamp, a
base and support rod, a mass balance, a
dynamics track, a mass hanger, a string,
a meter stick, and a mass set
Perform Setup 2
The PAScar will be placed along an
inclined plane. The spring will be
compressed and released, causing the
car to move.

Recording,
Perform Setup 1
Use weights to displace the PAScar from Analysis
Displacements from each set will be
equilibrium. A stopping block will be used recorded, along with other important
as a collider. data. Analysis will be done after
completing all data.
 Results

Displacement from
Added Mass (g) Position (cm) Force (N)
Equilibrium (cm)
4.96 ± 0.01 60.0 ± 0.1 37.0 ± 0.1 0.0486 ± 2%

14.96 ± 0.01 60.0 ± 0.1 43.0 ± 0.1 0.1466 ± 0.7%

24.96 ± 0.01 60.0 ± 0.1 45.0 ± 0.1 0.2446 ± 0.4%

54.96 ± 0.01 60.0 ± 0.1 45.0 ± 0.1 0.5386 ± 0.2%

104.96 ± 0.01 60.0 ± 0.1 43.0 ± 0.1 1.0286 ± 0.1%

Table 1. Displacement of PAScar caused by the gravitational force

of added mass
The recorded data were gathered from conducting the experiment. The force was calculated based on the mass of the
weights multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity. This process was done for all five trials with varying masses.
 Results

Angle h = d sin θ
(degrees) Mass (g) Trial 1 (cm) 2 (cm) 3 (cm) 4 (cm) 5 (cm) Max (cm) (cm)

9.37 ± 0.7% 251.69 ± 0.01 63.5 ± 0.1 64.5 ± 0.1 63.5 ± 0.1 66.5 ± 0.1 62.5 ± 0.1 66.5 ± 0.1 10.44 ± 3.7%

14.26 ± 0.5% 251.69 ± 0.01 40.5 ± 0.1 41.5 ± 0.1 41.5 ± 0.1 41.5 ± 0.1 39.5 ± 0.1 41.5 ± 0.1 10.07 ± 2.5%

15.77 ± 0.4% 251.69 ± 0.01 36.5 ± 0.1 38.5 ± 0.1 36.5 ± 0.1 37.5 ± 0.1 37.5 ± 0.1 38.5 ± 0.1 10.14 ± 3.4%

Table 2. Distance travelled by the car based on inclination of

the track
The maximum length of the track and the height at its farthest point were used to determine the angle since the setup
formed a right triangle. The mass of the car was recorded from the first setup. The height at which the car stopped was
calculated using the equation h = d sin theta.
 Results

1.2

0.8 y = 0.2352x - 0.3042

R² = 0.8834
Force (N)

0.6

0.4
Series1 Linear (Series1)
0.2

0
0.37 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.43

-0.2
Displacement (m)

Figure 1. Force vs displacement graph

The data for force and displacement for the first procedure were graphed such that the displacement was the
independent variable and the force was the dependent variable. The slope of the best-fit line will be equal to the spring
constant.
 Results

Angle (degrees) /
Spring PE (N) Gravitational PE (N) % Difference
Mass (g)
9.37 ± 0.7% / 251.69
0.00024 ± 2.6% 0.258 ± 0.1% 199.63% ± 2%
± 0.01
14.26 ± 0.5% 251.69
0.00024 ± 2.6% 0.2484 ± 0.1% 156.47% ± 2%
± 0.01
15.77 ± 0.4% 251.69
0.00024 ± 2.6% 0.2501 ± 0.1% 152.64% ± 2%
± 0.01

Table 3. Summary of the potential energies from the experiment

The spring potential energy and gravitational potential energy were calculated for trials 1, 2, and 3 of the second setup.
The percent differences were calculated per trial and compared.
 Discussion

Based on the experimental data gathered, the gravitational potential energy was larger than the
spring potential energy. The lost energy was transformed or transferred, but not destroyed. The
conservation of energy states that within an isolated system, energy is neither created nor destroyed;
energy can be converted from one form to another, but the total energy within the domain remains
fixed (Serway & Faughn, 2016). The energy lost was potential energy converted to thermal energy, in
the form of friction. In addition, the effective spring constant was only determined experimentally;
thus, there could be major errors regarding the actual spring constant of the spring used.

10
 Discussion
The gravitational potential energy remained the same when the mass of the car was doubled
because the system inertly conserves mechanical energy and thus, gravitational potential energy.
While the mass might be doubled, the height at which the car comes to a halt due to gravitational
force is decreased by a factor of two. The heavier the car, the harder it is for it to go up an inclined
plane (Serway & Faughn, 2016).

By comparing spring potential energy and gravitational potential energy for three trials in the second
setup, it was calculated that the percent difference between the two are 199.63% ± 2%, 156.47% ±
2%, and 152.64% ± 2%, for trials 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The experiment was not perfect due to
many errors regarding measurement and uncertainty. Some measurements were both inaccurate and
imprecise. This could be attributed to systematic errors and reproducibility errors. The experiment
could be improved by taking more time in carefully measuring the necessary data and being more
meticulous in setting up the procedures.

11
References
Serway, R. A., & Faughn, J. S. (2016). Physics. Orlando, FL: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Cutnell, J. D., Johnson, K. W., Stadler, S., & Young, D. (2015). Physics.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

12
Ivala
any questions?

13