1.

) After my group set up the computer, the motion sensor, and the Data Studio software, I
held a cardboard box lid up, close to my body, at the height of the motion sensor, so it
would have a definite surface to measure from. I walked back and forth in front of the
sensor for approximately 11 seconds (a group member timed me). I actually had to walk
back and forth several times, in order to produce a smooth position graph. Data Studio
allowed me to compare the position and velocity graphs, showing the relationship between
acceleration and velocity.
3.) From my position graph, I can see that my total distance traveled was approximately 5.05
meters, and my displacement was around 0.915 meters, from t=1 to t=11.
Average speed = = 0.505 meters/sec

Average velocity = = .0915 meters/sec away from the sensor.

4.) The displacement in Step 9 was nearly the same as the area in Step 10. There was only a
tiny discrepancy.
Percent error: *100 =0.057% error
One reason why the numbers might be different is that the selection from the closest and
farthest points from the sensor may not be completely accurate to each other, because they
were estimated. If this wasnt exactly accurate, the displacement and the area may have
been off. In addition, the velocities seem to be measured in averages, and not
continuously. This causes some parts of the graph to have steep spikes or drops, without
the graph looking smooth. The little disconnectedness of the graph due to non-continuous
measurements of velocity might lead to an inaccurate reading of the area.
5.) The position graph slopes were generally equal to the velocity graph values. This was true
at the zero crossings, and the minimum value on the velocity graph. However, there was a
discrepancy at the maximum value on the velocity graph. This was probably due to the
fact that the velocity graph spikes at that point, and so the reading is inherently inaccurate.