PHY 122

Lab Linear Motion

Ashley Straub

Team: Alexander Brooking, Ashli Ali,

Class 71628

Tuesday 4:25-6:15

1
 Objective:

To determine velocity and acceleration trends of a cart moving along a horizontal and

angled track both towards and away a PASCO motion sensor by studying velocity vs. time

and position vs. time graphs.

Experimental Data
Experiment 1. Constant Velocity Motion.
TABLE 1
Way of moving Slope ± uncertainty, Statistics value
(position vs time graph) (velocity vs time graph)
Toward to the motion -0.203 -0.20
sensor
Away from the motion 0.314 0.29
sensor

Experiment 2. Uniformly Accelerated Motion

TABLE 2
Run # A B C
Value ± uncertainty Value ± uncertainty Value ± uncertainty
Run up the track 0.319 -1.19 0.816

Run down the 0.353 -0.00256 0.193

track

Data Analysis:
Experiment 1:
Constant Velocity Linear Motion:

𝒙(𝒕) = 𝒙𝟎 + 𝝂𝒙 𝒕

2
Carts Motion Toward Sensor:

𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑𝟑 − 𝟎. 𝟐𝟎𝟑𝒕

Carts Motion Away From Sensor:

𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟒𝟏𝟗 + 𝟎. 𝟑𝟏𝟒𝒕

Experiment 2:

Part A

Down the Track:

Coefficient A from x(t) vs. t:

0.353

Slope of v(t) vs. t:

0.713

𝟏
× 𝟎. 𝟕𝟏𝟑 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟓𝟔𝟓
𝟐

Up the Track:

Coefficient A from x(t) vs. t:

0.310

Slope of v(t) vs. t:

0.623

𝟏
× 𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟑 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟏𝟏𝟓
𝟐

Part B
𝟏
𝒙(𝒕) = 𝒙𝟎 + 𝒗𝟎 𝒕 + 𝒂𝒙 𝒕𝟐
𝟐

Down the Track:

3
 𝟏
𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟑 − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟓𝟔𝒕 + (𝟎. 𝟏𝟕𝟕)𝒕𝟐
𝟐

Up the Track

𝟏
𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟏𝟔 − 𝟏. 𝟏𝟗𝒕 + (𝟎. 𝟏𝟓𝟓)𝒕𝟐
𝟐

Results
Experiment Position vs. Time Velocity vs. Time
1. Toward 𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑𝟑 − 𝟎. 𝟐𝟎𝟑𝒕 𝒗(𝒕) = −𝟎. 𝟐𝟎
Sensor
1. Away From 𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟒𝟏𝟗 + 𝟎. 𝟑𝟏𝟒𝒕 𝒗(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟗
Sensor
2. Down Track 𝟏 𝐯(𝐭) = −𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟑𝟖𝟖 + 𝟎. 𝟕𝟏𝟑𝐭
𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟗𝟑 − 𝟎. 𝟎𝟎𝟐𝟓𝟔𝒕 + (𝟎. 𝟕𝟎𝟔)𝒕𝟐
𝟐

2. Up Track 𝟏 𝐯(𝐭) = −𝟏. 𝟏𝟖 + 𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟑𝐭

𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟏𝟔 − 𝟏. 𝟏𝟗𝒕 + (𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟎)𝒕𝟐
𝟐

2. Up Then 𝟏 𝐯(𝐭) = −𝟎. 𝟖𝟖𝟑 + 𝟎. 𝟔𝟕𝟐𝐭

Down Track 𝒙(𝒕) = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟐𝟑 − 𝟎. 𝟗𝟕𝟑𝒕 + (𝟎. 𝟕𝟐𝟔)𝒕𝟐
𝟐

Discussion and Conclusion

The objective of this experiment was to study the various types of motion of a cart

moving along straight line on a track toward and away from a motion sensor, with and without

acceleration due to gravity. The types of motion studied were interpreted by the cart’s velocity

vs. time and position vs time graphs.

Linear motion is motion along a straight line that can be described as various types

including, constant velocity motion, uniformly accelerated motion, and free fall. The study of

this motion is called kinematics. These types of motions can be described by looking at an

object’s relationship between its position and time, as well as its relationship between its

velocity and time. For an object with constant velocity motion, its position vs. time

4
relationship should be linear where its slope will be a constant otherwise known as that

object’s velocity. This slope constant is represented as that object’s relationship between

velocity and time as a straight horizontal line on a graph, where its acceleration is 0. For an

object with uniformly accelerated motion, because velocity changes at an average rate along

time, the position versus time relationship of an object with this type of motion will be a

quadratic relationship. Since velocity changes at this average rate, a uniformly accelerated

object will have a linear relationship between velocity and time where the slope of that line

will be a constant represented as the constant acceleration acted upon that object.

The experiment performed involved the use of a Dynamic Track, Dynamics cart,

Dynamics track rod clamp, and a PASCO motion sensor. For the first part of the experiment,

the cart was pushed towards the sensor for run 1, then away from the sensor for run 2 on a

horizontally leveled track. The cart was stopped when it reached 20cm before the end of the

track or sensor and its motion was recorded as a graph representation on a CAPSTONE

program, which tracked its linear relationship between position and time, by the use of the

“linear fit” function as well as velocity and time by the use of the “Statistics” function. For the

second part of the experiment, the track was clamped on one side at an angular level, then the

cart was once again pushed towards the sensor, then stopped 20 cm down the track for run 3,

away then stopped for run 4, and pushed the cart up the track and stopped it at the bottom of

the track for run 5. Lastly, the “Quadratic Fit” function was used on the CAPSTONE program

to describe the objects relationship between position and time in experiment 2 and the “Linear

Fit” function was used to describe its relationship between velocity and time.

The general equation for an object with constant velocity is x(t) = x0 + vxt and an object

with uniformly accelerated motion is x(t) = x0 + v0t + (1/2)at2 where the derivatives of these

functions are an objects velocity; therefore, the experiments performed should have shown

that the velocity is the slope of the position vs. time equation. Experiment 1 showed that

5
when the object moved towards the sensor, its graph was represented linearly as the equation,

x(t) = 0.833 – 0.203t, where v(t) = x’(t) = -0.203, and when the object moved away from the

sensor, x(t) = 0.0419 + 0.314t, and due to the objects motion in the positive direction, v(t) =

x’(t) = 0.29 verifying that the slopes of x(t) from run 1 and run 2 indeed were the objects

constant velocity due to their horizontal v(t) vs. t line graphs and linear x(t) vs. t graphs.

Similar results were shown during experiment 2, except the motion of the cart, moved up or

down the track were represented as a quadratic function where the derivatives were equal to a

linear function. When the cart moved up the track, its graph represented the left side of a

parabola x(t) = 0.816 – 1.19t + (1/2)(0.620)t2, when the cart moved down the track, its graph

represented the right side of a parabola x(t) = 0.193 – 0.00256 +(1/2)(0.706)t2, and when the

cart moved up then down the track, its graph represented an entire parabola, x(t) = 0.923 –

0.973t + (1/2)(0.726)t2 where its minimum was its motion at the top of the track. Since v(t) =

v0 + at, it can be concluded that all three runs were acted upon the same amount of

acceleration, i.e. acceleration due to gravity in which the linear functions of these runs in

their v(t) vs. t graphs were for run 3, (down the track) v(t) = -0.00388 + 0.713t, run 4, (up

the track) v(t) = -1.18 + 0.623t and run 5, (up then down the track) v(t) = -0.883 + 0.672t.

As with any experiment, errors will occur. For this experiment, the equations used are

based on a frictionless world, in which although Dynamics carts do not experience very

much friction, friction still exists, creating small errors due to the equations used for this

experiment. Another slight error could have come from the way that CAPSTONE calculated

their “Fit” functions, although the derivative of the x(t) vs t graphs are very simple to do, the

v(t) vs t graphs did not equal exactly as if the derivative was taken due to the +/- amounts

calculated by the program. Lastly, due to non-exact procedures of the lab, the lab could not

be perfectly replicated, for there was no instruction on how high to angle the Dynamics track.

While the purpose of the experiment is still fulfilled, the higher the track is raised, the more

6
acceleration due to gravity is acted upon the cart which could yield higher constant

acceleration values.

In conclusion, constant velocity and uniformly accelerated motion were diligently studied

for an objects motion along a straight line. Also, the relationships between an objects position

and velocity change with time were accurately described by their trend lines.