Group 4

Manish Roy
Physics1501Q-023L
19 April 2016
Jared Nye
Patrick Lyon
Refereeing the Cart Acceleration Lab
Abstract
Within the Abstract we found several errors. First, they did not mention the goal of the
experiment which is to prove that the value of g=9.81 through experimentation. Secondly, They
did not state their confidence in their data which is important for future experimenters to know if
the experiment is a good one, or not so great. They did mention their final result which is helpful
to know that they did the experiment properly.
Introduction/Theory
Once again the goal of the experiment was not explicitly stated in the introduction
(proving that g=9.81), however the mathematical model was stated and derived from basic
physics concepts which was a plus to see that the experimenters knew what they were doing and
that the experiment is based soundly on the concepts of physics. They did not state what the
specific limitations of the model, for instance we assume that g=9.81, but depending on where
the experiment was run this could vary and throw off the results. The experiment also assumes
that there was a frictionless track and neglects air resistance. The writers of this lab also
confused their independent and dependent variables in the theory saying that acceleration was
the independent and radians was the dependent when it was the opposite. They also mentioned
that sin theta can go to infinity which is not true since we know at maximum sin theta can go to
1.
Procedure
The writers of this lab did several things correctly in the procedure such as mentioning
the steps they took to set up and run the lab, and also how many trials they did, however they did
many things incorrectly as well. They neglected to mention independent design decisions made
throughout the experiment (or defending what the software/hardware they used) thus making the
procedure very open to interpretation. While they did mention the number of trials they did, they
failed to mention the reason for this number. They could have said to make it a significant
number of trials so that the data could be graphed with error bars, and be considered more
accurate. The range for the independent variable was also missing, they could have mentioned
that the range was between 0 and 1 since sin theta goes between 0 and 1 in the first 180 degrees.
One step that could be adjusted to improve this experiment would be to mention why the specific
angles used were chosen and so experimenters could use those angles to determine if the results
they obtained were actually similar to the ones obtained by the writers of this lab report.
Data

For the data the writers of this lab did many things wrong and drops our confidence in the
legitimacy of this lab. Primarily the actual data table of both the experimental and theoretical
data was not present, and thus we do not know what angles they used nor what their calculated
acceleration was. They also included far too many models within the graph when they should
have only been one, they should have only included that model that fit their data best IE about
10%, and did not include error bars with their data. They also did not include captions with their
graph. All of these things reduce the repeatability and confidence in the legitimacy of their lab as
the graph itself is mostly unreadable and also the person attempting to repeat the experiment
does not know which values of sin theta to use/ what their actual results are.

Figure 1-Experimental Data

Figure 2-Theoretical Model with 10% tolerance zone

Figure 3-Graph of data with the uncertainties and model

This is what we managed to replicate using their procedure and data. From what we can see our
data was in agreement with their data (but we cannot be sure as we dont have their actual
values). Since both of our data was within 10% if the theoretical model we can assume that we
did the experiment correctly and that this experiment is a legitimate calculation of gravity. One
part of the apparatus that could be imp0roved to improve the results of the data would be the
track and to make the track frictionless which removes all outside forces and removes one of the
limitations of the model.

Analysis
The biggest problem with the analysis was that there was no explanation of how they
went from raw data to the actual graph. Had they stated this, it would have legitimized their
graph. For example, using the data we obtained to plot individual points on the graph actually
represent raw data that was calculated from the experiment. With the data tables omitted the
experimenter is at a loss for determining how to construct a similar graph. The reasons for steps
of error analysis for both the experimental data and model were omitted. This shows the writers
lack depth of understanding in the experiment. The reason for taking error analysis shows one is
accounting for all unknowns that effect the experiment using error bars. The quality of the data
was not discussed by the writers of this report. The confidence was not discussed as well, leaving
experimenters unable to determine their own confidence in the data as well as the quality of the
data. They did attempt to do error analysis of the x-error bars but were incorrect. The actual y-

error bars should be equal to the Pasco error bars given during the measurement of acceleration.
The x-error bars are calculated using error propagation. One significant source of error in this
experiment was the friction on the track which slows down the cart, and by replacing with a
frictionless track one can remove completely the factor of friction in the experiment.

Conclusion
The goal of this experiment was once again not explicitly stated. The quality of the data
was also once again omitted. There is a trend of the same things being omitted that need to
appear in multiple parts of the lab report. The degree of confidence in the experimental datas fit
within the tolerance zone of the model was not discussed, once again leaving the experimenters
unsure about what to make of their data. While an improvement was mentioned, the predicted
effect of the improvement on the source of error was not explained. Only one improvement was
mentioned, when other more important ones could have been mentioned such as being provided
with a more stable apparatus as the current apparatus was not as stable as one would like to
ensure complete accuracy and confidence with the results. This experiment is not legitimate
without the results being explicitly stated to be compared to. Lastly, this lab report, if graded by
Manish Roy, would most likely receive a C because of its many missing components.