Year 11 Full Investigation

Investigating energy transfers in a trolley

Aim: From this investigation, I am trying to find out about the relationship between the height of a ramp and the
speed of a trolley as it rolls down the ramp. I am also trying to investigate how efficient the energy transfer from Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) to Kinetic energy (KE) is in the trolley.

Prediction: When an object is above ground level, it builds up Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) but when it
starts to drop, the GPE is transferred into Kinetic energy (K E), which is the energy of movement. However, our world is not perfect so I predict that there will be a considerable amount of energy which is wasted mostly due to friction (generating heat and sound energy in the wheels). Therefore, the theoretical transfer of GPE to K E (a 1:1 ratio) will be higher than the actual transfer of GPE to KE.

Variables
The independent variable is the height of the ramp. The dependent variable is the speed of the trolley. Below are the control variables and some information about each of them: Control variable The trolley must start at a constant start line. How it is controlled This can be controlled by drawing a straight line (with a ruler) with a permanent pen which does not rub off easily. How it could affect my results This could reduce the distance the trolley has to travel down the ramp which would lead to lower speed and would not allow the energy transfer to fully complete which would make the result appear to show a less efficient energy transfer, causing the results to be unreliable. This could make the results unreliable: a new trolley could have rougher wheels which increases friction and reduces speed or a new ramp could be smoother which reduces friction and increases speed

All of the equipment used in the investigation must be the same throughout.

To ensure the same equipment is used throughout the investigation, either do not carry out the experiment in two parts (by not taking a break during the investigation) or write your name on all of the equipment clearly using a permanent marker pen. Ensure the cardboard fin is not altered or swapped for another

The cardboard fin must not be altered during the experiment, such

If the cardboard fin was cut down to make it smaller, the trolley could

Page 1 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

as having corners rounded for safety or cutting it down for it to pass through the light gate more easily.

during the investigation. Try to ensure that the cardboard fin is held so firmly to the trolley that it cannot fall off when the trolley is moving (take care not to block the wheels of the trolley as that could stop the trolley moving properly which would greatly affect the results accuracy and reliability). Ensure the light gate is held over the same position on the ramp throughout the investigation, either by not altering its position at all or by marking the finish line with a permanent marker pen and a ruler.

become slightly more streamlined which reduces air resistance and allows for an increase in speed.

Ensure the light gate is held above the same place on the end of the ramp.

If the light gate was moved during the investigation, the trolley may have less distance to travel and would not allow the energy transfer to fully complete which would make the result appear to show a less efficient energy transfer, causing the results to be unreliable If the items moved or slipped, the ramps height could be slightly altered which would make the results unreliable due to the trolley having more or less speed (depending on whether the ramp is moved higher or lower) and possibly stopping the trolley reaching a fully completed energy transfer. If the trolley forces the rucksack/bag away from the ramp, the trolley may bounce back from the bag and potentially hurt someone or the trolley may push the bag back and could damage something or hurt someone.

Ensure that the items which prop the ramp up are stable and will not move or slip.

To ensure the items propping the ramp up do not slip, select items such as boxes rather than items such as piles of books or folders.

Ensure that the rucksack/bag is at a constant distance from the end of the ramp.

To ensure the rucksack/bag is at a constant distance from the end of the ramp, mark out where it should be with a permanent marker pen and adjust the bags position if the trolley moves the rucksack/bag.

Page 2 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

Equipment list
Equipment Ramp Use It will be positioned at different heights (at least 5) and will allow the trolley to roll down it. With a permanent marker pen, mark out a straight start line to let go of the trolley from to make sure the results are accurate. A small wooden trolley will be positioned at the top of the ramp and will be let go so it can roll down the ramp. Reason for Choosing This Equipment A smooth ramp reduces the amount of friction which will allow the trolley to convert more of its GPE into KE and to go down the ramp faster. Without a ramp, the trolley would only fall and that would not be of any use in this investigation. A trolley is needed as it is the thing which will move down the ramp. It is best to get a good trolley as the results of the experiment may be biased if the trolley has wonky wheels, etc which would make the results less reliable. The cardboard fin is needed to allow the light gates light beam to be interrupted, getting a measurement of the trolleys speed. When the cardboard fin on the trolley passes through the light gate, it will disrupt a beam of light and the speed will be recorded by the data logger. The data logger records the speed of the trolley when the cardboard fin has passed through the light gate. A data logger which provides results to 2 decimal places is best to choose in this investigation as this is more precise than simply rounding it off to 1 decimal place. The laptop is needed to display the data so that the user can understand it and can then record it.

Trolley

Cardboard Fin

Light gate

The fin will measure 10cmx10cm and it will be attached to the trolley. It will pass through the light gate at the bottom of the ramp to get a measurement of its speed. It will be positioned at the bottom of the ramp (it will be held up by a clamp stand). This will be connected to the light gate and the laptop with a wire. It will calculate the speed of the trolley and will send the data to the laptop.

Data logger

Laptop

Metre ruler

This will be connected to the data logger. Upon receiving the data from the data logger, the laptop will display it on its screen and will allow me to record the results in a results table. This will allow me to measure the height of the ramp so I can adjust it accordingly.

Clamp stand

This will stand at the bottom of the ramp and will hold the light gate up in the air above the bottom of the ramp and will keep it in place throughout the experiment. These will be everyday classroom items such as a pile of textbooks or a stool or some boxes piled on top of each other. This will be used to mark a start line on the ramp (with the ruler).

Items to prop ramp up

Permanent marker pen

Sellotape

This will be used to attach the cardboard fin to the trolley. Ensure the cardboard fin does not fall off!

The ruler is essential for ensuring that the height of the ramp is precise. It is good to select a ruler that is clear, easy to read and is not bent or damaged as this will allow for more reliable results. The clamp stand needs to keep the light gate in a constant position above the bottom of the ramp so that the results are accurate and so that the light gate does not break (it could get hit by the trolley without the clamp stand). These will allow me to prop the ramp up at a specific height (measured by the metre ruler). It must be ensured that these items will not fall out of place as this could hurt someone. A straight start line is vital so that I can ensure that the distance the trolley travels is constant throughout the experiment. Ensure that the start line is always visible on the ramp! The sellotape holds the cardboard fin firmly in place on the trolley so that it does not injure anyone and so that the fin always passes through the light gate

Page 3 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

Rucksack/bag

This will be placed about 2 paces away from the end of the ramp to absorb the impact of the trolley.

and provides an accurate reading. This is useful as it prevents the trolley injuring someone and a rucksack/bag is good for absorbing the shock of the impact. A solid object such as a large, plastic box must be avoided for this purpose as it needs to be soft enough (like a rucksack/bag) to absorb the shock of the hit of the trolley. If a solid object was hit by the trolley, it may shatter which could harm someone.

Method
In bold are the safety points to look out for whilst doing this experiment. 1) Gather all of the equipment stated on the equipment list and make sure it is all working before setting up the experiment. 2) Plug in the laptop but do not switch it or the power socket on yet (only do so when you are instructed to later) turning on the power may lead to electrocution! Ensure that there is no water on or near any of the electrical equipment as that may also lead to electrocution. 3) Use cable to connect the light gate to input A of the data logger. 4) Use a USB cable to connect laptop to data logger. 5) Put the light gate into the clamp stand and place above the bottom end of the ramp. 6) Place a rucksack/bag (NOT a plastic bag!) a pace or two from the end of the ramp. This will absorb the impact of the trolley and will stop the trolley hitting a person and potentially harming them. Be careful not to trip over the bag. 7) With the permanent marker pen, clearly mark out a start line on the ramp from which the trolley can be dropped from. This start line must be straight (use a ruler to help you) and needs to allow the trolley to be fully on the ramp when it is released. Ensure the trolley is dropped from the same position on the start line every time. 8) Using sellotape, stick a cardboard fin onto the trolley to make sure it passes through the light gate. The dimensions of the cardboard fin need to be 10cmx10cm. Make sure the cardboard fin has no sharp corners on it and that it is held firmly in place and will not fall off when the trolley is moving. Otherwise, it may fly off into the air and could lead to blindness if a corner hits someones eye. 9) Check all of the connections. 10) Turn the power socket and the laptop on. Do not touch any of the connection points as doing so may lead to electrocution! If there is a problem with the connection, turn off the laptop and the power socket and return to step 7. 11) Log onto the laptop (use a student user if it is a school laptop). Be careful not to spill water on or near the laptop or any other electrical equipment as it could lead to electrocution. 12) Follow these instructions: a. Click on the start menu b. Click on All Programs c. Click on Easy Sense Software 13) When you are on the homepage of the Easy Sense Software, follow these instructions: a. Click on Timing on the banner at the top of the page b. Choose speed velocity at A (this makes sense when you are using the software) c. Select Single Card

Page 4 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

14) 15) 16) 17)

18) 19)

20) 21) 22)

d. When prompted, enter one of these values: 100mm or 10cm e. Change both values to 2 decimal places (this makes the experiment accurate!) f. Ignore the last screen g. Click on the Finish button. Now that the laptop is prepared, you may begin the experiment (read on for instructions as to how to carry out the experiment safely and accurately) Hold the trolley on the start line on the ramp. Do not let go yet. Click Start on the laptop (on the Easy Sense Software not the start menu!) Quickly release the trolley. Do not use any force to push the trolley as this will lead to inaccurate/biased results! Ensure there is nothing obstructing the trolley (apart from the rucksack/bag) and that your fingers will not be run over by the trolley. Ensure that any other people stand at a fair distance of a few paces away from the equipment to prevent the rucksack/bag tripping someone over or the trolley bouncing away from the bag, again potentially injuring someone. If the trolley does not pass through the light gate repeat steps 15-17 until it does pass through. If the trolley does pass through the light gate, you may continue. Set the ramp to 1 metre (100 cm) using everyday classroom items and a metre ruler. Ensure the ramp will not fall over! This may hurt someone badly! Also do not raise the ramp to over 1 metre as the trolley moves very quickly and is too much of a safety risk! However, it is recommended that the ramp is 20cm or higher as, below that height, the trolley does not move down the ramp at all. Carry out steps 15-18 and record the results displayed on the laptop. Repeat this experiment three times and record the results displayed on the laptop. Ensure all of the equipment and the process/order in which you use them is exactly the same every time! Repeat steps 15-18 and record the results displayed on the laptop for the heights of 90cm, 80cm, 70cm, 60cm, 50cm Ensure all of the equipment and the process/order in which you use them is exactly the same every time.

Page 5 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

Preliminary Test
To ensure that my method works properly, I carried out a few preliminary tests. I tested my method at 3 heights: 1.10m, 0.10m and 0.70m. The 1.10m height proved to be far too dangerous for my experiment as the trolley moved at a very fast speed, hitting the sides of the ramp and the bag at the end of the ramp could not absorb the impact. The 0.10m height was too shallow and the trolley would not move down the ramp so would not produce any results in my experiment. The 0.70m height was suitable and all three tests showed me that the method of my experiment worked as it was supposed to and that it would produce reliable results. My preliminary tests showed me that my apparatus works well and is suitable for use in my experiment. However, I discovered that I had to be careful so that the classroom items used to prop up the ramp do not fall over. Although this could be a potential safety hazard, the limited equipment available in school meant that there is no alternative to this.

Results Table
Table 1 Height of ramp (m) 1.00 0.90 0.82 0.70 0.60 0.49 0.40 0.30 0.22 Speed of trolley (m/s) Test 1 3.70 3.63 3.52 3.19 3.16 2.46 2.15 1.83 1.33 Test 2 3.65 3.66 3.48 3.11 2.75 2.46 2.17 1.82 1.26 Test 3 3.61 3.65 3.52 3.12 2.76 2.44 2.07 1.84 1.27 Average 3.65 3.65 3.51 3.14 2.76 2.45 2.16 1.83 1.29

Some repeats show outliers which were not included in the average results these outliers are highlighted in yellow.

Page 6 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

Since the 1.10m and 0.10m heights did not work well in my preliminary experiment, I decided to limit the maximum height to 1.00m and the minimum height to 0.20m. Initially, I decided to go up in 0.2m height intervals when I was carrying out my experiment but, during the experiment, I decided to change the range to 0.1m intervals to increase the reliability of my results (by having more results, I can be more confident in the reliability of my results).

Page 7 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

Tables of Calculations
Table 2 Height (M) GPE (J)

Theoretical Velocity (m/s)

Actual Velocity (m/s) 3.65 3.65 3.51 3.14 2.76 2.45 2.16 1.83 1.29

Actual KE (J)

Efficiency (%)

1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20

6.38 5.74 5.10 4.46 3.83 3.19 2.55 1.91 1.28

4.43 4.20 3.96 3.70 3.43 3.13 2.80 2.42 1.98

4.33 4.33 4.00 3.20 2.48 1.95 1.52 1.09 0.54

67.97 75.44 78.43 71.75 64.92 61.13 59.61 57.07 42.19

Below is a table showing a fully worked example of how I calculated the values in table two:

Table 3 Height GPE (J) (M)

Theoretical KE (J)

Theoretical Velocity (m/s)

Actual Velocity (m/s) The Result from the data logger and previous table: 3.65

Actual KE (J)

Efficiency (%)

The height of the ramp: 1

GPE = MGH (mass x gravity x height): 0.65 x 9.81 x 1 = 6.38

Same as GPE: 6.38

V = 2KE M V = 2 x 6.38 0.65 4.43

KE = x M x V2 4.33

Theoretical KE Actual KE x 100 6.38 4.33 x 100 67.97

All of the calculations found in table 3 (above) are very important parts in my investigation. The significance of each column is explained below: Height: part of the preliminary test and useful for calculating the GPE.

Page 8 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

GPE: used to calculate the theoretical KE. Theoretical KE: compared against the actual KE to see if my results are reliable and to work out the efficiency of the energy transfer in the trolley. Theoretical Velocity: compared against the actual velocity to see if my results are reliable and to see how much velocity had been lost due to friction and air resistance affecting the trolley. Actual Velocity: to work out the actual KE. Actual KE: to work out the efficiency of the energy transfer. Efficiency: to show how much energy was wasted due to friction and to make it easier for me to make a conclusion about the efficiency of the energy transfer in the trolley.

Analysis
I decided to do 3 graphs: KE x GPE, Velocity x GPE and Velocity x Height. Having three graphs rather than one or two can help make my conclusion as accurate as possible. I noticed that all of my graphs showed positive correlations. However, graph 1 had a line of best fit which had a curve towards the end of it and it was diagonal but graphs 2 and 3s best fits were in the shape of a curve throughout (They were diagonal as well). The curve on the line of best fit in graph 1 shows that at around 3.7m/s, the trolley had reached a terminal velocity (maximum speed) and could not go any faster. This terminal velocity was due to the increase of friction in the wheels and air resistance which caused the forces acting on the trolley to become equal. The gradient of graph 1 was 3.7 (I could not calculate a gradient for graphs 2 and 3 as they were curves and gradients can only be calculated on a straight line). I noticed that for 0.2 m height, the velocity had reached 1.29 m/s and for 0.8 m height, the velocity had reached 3.51 m/s.

Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE) is the energy gained by an object as its height above ground level increases. It can be worked out using the formula: GPE = mgh (mass x gravity x height) Mass and gravity are constant values (Multiple constants can be replaced by the single constant K - this is the algebraic letter which shows the existence of direct proportion, as shown below) Therefore, GPE height This direct proportionality means that when the height of the ramp is increased, the GPE will also increase.

Conservation of energy (the energy transfer) is when energy is converted from one form into another. When the trolley is released, the GPE is converted into Kinetic energy (K E) which is the energy of movement. KE can be worked out using this formula: KE = mv 1/2 x mass x (velocity x velocity)) and m are constants. 2 Therefore, KE v
2(

Page 9 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

This direct proportionality means that the Kinetic energy increases according to the square of the velocity 2 (v ). This can be seen in graph 2 and graph 3 as the theoretical curves are a similar shape (all 3 graphs show positive correlations and are all curves). In theory, all of the energy is converted from GPE to KE and the energy transfer should work at a ratio of 1:1 (having theoretical results gives me something to compare my actual results with. It helps to show whether my results are reliable and shows how much energy is wasted due to friction): KE = GPE 2 mv = mgh 2 v = gh (the mass is on both sides so they can cancel each other out) 2 V = 2gh (multiplied by 2 to eliminate the value) 2 and g are constants 2 Therefore, v h This can be seen in graph 1 as the line of best fit is a straight line. However, in reality, energy is lost due to air resistance and friction (generating heat and sound energy between the wheels and the ramp). This is shown in graphs 2 and 3 where the actual curve falls below the theoretical curve. As the height increases, the speed of the trolley reaches its terminal velocity (and cannot go any faster) due to the increase of friction. This is shown in graph 1 where the velocity reaches its maximum value of around 3.7 m/s. The energy lost is seen on graph 2 as the scatter (empty space) between the two curves. The size of that scatter between the curves is a visual demonstration which shows how much energy had been lost due to friction and air resistance. On graph 2, this scatter is fairly large (particularly at the higher values/at the top of the curves) this shows that the energy transfer between GPE and K E was badly affected by friction and that my actual results are not very efficient. Likewise, the scatter between the two curves on graph 3 shows how much the speed of the trolley has been affected by friction and air resistance. There is not very much scatter between the curves so the speed has been rather efficient and friction had not affected it as much as it had affected the energy transfer. This scatter between the curves limits the reliability of my conclusion as the friction and air resistance limits the extent to which my conclusion is true.

Evaluation
Overall, my results are highly consistent. This is shown in graph 1 as the range bars are very small (However, I had to exaggerate the size of the range bars to make them visible this reduces the accuracy of graph 1). My results consistency shows that they must be reliable. The fact that, on graphs 2 and 3, the actual and theoretical curves are the same shape also shows that my results must be reliable and somewhat precise. Despite my results being reliable and consistent, I still managed to get some outlying results from my preliminary test. These can be found in table 1. They are; in test 1 at 0.60m height the speed was 3.16 m/s and in test 3 at 0.40m height the speed was 2.07 m/s. The reason why these outliers exist systematically in my results could be that I may have accidentally pushed the trolley, making it faster and making it less efficient (as, if the trolley

Page 10 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

reaches its terminal velocity, the efficiency of the energy transfer decreases). I did not include these outliers in my results as they would affect my conclusion and make any results I had less accurate. The theoretical curves on graphs 2 and 3 show the perfect energy transfer and are the expected values. In one light, my results are rather accurate as both the actual and theoretical curves on both graphs are the same shape and both show positive correlations. However, in another light, my results are not very accurate, though they may be reliable. This is because, since the actual curves on both graphs are lower than the theoretical/expected curves, they are not as accurate as they could be in theory due to friction wasting energy into heat and sound energy. I am confident that my results support my conclusion for a number of reasons. Firstly, in graphs 2 and 3, the actual curves are below the theoretical curves. I had expected this in my prediction and this shows that my results must be accurate to a certain degree. Secondly, my results are very close together and are highly consistent (excluding the outliers). Since my results are so consistent even after I had carried out three tests for each height in my preliminary test, I can be confident that my results are reliable and that if anybody repeated my investigation again, using the same equipment and methods, they would get the same results as I have done. Thirdly, my results appear to match the formulae I have used on the analysis. Since these formulae are mathematically correct, my results must also be accurate and my graphs must be correct. Finally, in my experiment, I used a wide range of heights so that my results could be as reliable as possible since I have more data to use as the basis of my conclusion. Also carrying out the preliminary tests was helpful because it told me that moving the ramp above 1 metre would make the trolley move too quickly and cause it to become too dangerous. It was evident that this speed would make the experiments results very unreliable as the trolley was moving so quickly that it swerved and constantly kept hitting into the sides of the ramp as it dropped which would increase the friction affecting the trolley and the energy transfer would be less efficient. Although my apparatus and method are not perfect, I can still have confidence in them producing reliable results. The precision of the data logger, for instance, is very good: it provides results to 2 decimal places which is far more accurate than simply rounding it off to 1 decimal place. Using the laptop, I changed the sensitivity of the data logger so that the rebound of the trolley hitting the rucksack at the end of the ramp does not get picked up by the data logger. This increases the reliability of my results as it prevents (or at least reduces) the results received by the data logger being affected by unwanted factors. If I was to carry out this investigation again, I would like to make a few improvements to ensure that my results are as accurate and as reliable as possible. For example, the equipment that I have access to in my school is quite limited. If I repeated the investigation again, I would like to have access to a wider range of equipment. As seen in graphs 2 and 3, friction has played a large part in my investigation and has greatly reduced the efficiency of the energy transfer in the trolley. I would like to try and reduce the amount of friction to get the most accurate results possible. To do this, I could either use a smoother ramp and a trolley with smoother wheels (perhaps a new ramp and trolley which have not been worn down by previous use) or I could use oil in the wheels of the trolley. I could put an affordable oil product such as WD40 into the axels of the trolleys wheels this would greatly reduce the amount of friction in the wheels and would greatly increase the energy transfer in the trolley, allowing me to get more accurate results. I could improve the experiment by using a more precise way of setting the height of the ramp. Using limited everyday classroom items stacked on top of each other, I found it difficult to set the ramps height to specific heights. This can be seen in table 1 in which certain heights such as 0.80 metres could not be reached exactly so I had to settle for 0.82m instead which reduced the accuracy of the results. Perhaps I could attempt to eliminate any outliers if I carried out the investigation again. I believe that my systematic outliers were caused by me accidentally pushing the trolley. To solve this, I could try to build a mechanism which does not involve me physically letting go of the trolley which makes it impossible for me to push the trolley as the

Page 11 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2

mechanism lets go of the trolley for me (eliminating human error). For this mechanism I could: attach a string to the back of the trolley and cut it with scissors or build a barrier which would be raised when I push a switch. However, it would take a lot of time to build such a mechanism and it could be potentially costly. Instead of this, next time I could do a different experiment altogether in which I could let the trolley roll down some sort of zip wire contraption. This would still produce very similar results as the results which I have got but perhaps it may increase the air resistance and it would not be viable for use in school due to the limited equipment which is available. If I had also carried out more than 3 tests for each height, my conclusion would have been more reliable and secure as I would have more data to use in my conclusion. With these changes, my results would be highly accurate, highly consistent; the number of outliers would be reduced and would reduce the amount of friction affecting the efficiency of the energy transfer.

Page 12 of 12 By Patrick Eburne 11x2