Conclusion on the distance travelled by the car to the height up the ramp Essay Example

Conclusion on the distance travelled by the car to the height up the ramp Essay Example Conclusion on the distance travelled by the car to the height up the ramp Essay Conclusion on the distance travelled by the car to the height up the ramp Essay From the pattern on the graph we can conclude that the distance travelled by the car is further when you put the car higher up the ramp. We can prove this from the results on the graph. At ten centimetres up the ramp, the car travels an average distance of one hundred and seven point three centimetres. This is quite a low average of distance travelled and that is because there is less gravitational potential energy. As we get higher up the graph we find that the average distance does get larger, this is because there is more gravitational potential energy, and at twenty centimetres up the ramp there is almost a ninety centimetre difference of average between the lowest average and the highest average. This is because there is the most gravitational potential energy for the car.From the graph we can see that the gradient is larger at points fifteen centimetres on the average to fourteen centimetres on the average, then at seventeen centimetres on the average to twenty centimetres on t he average. This because the car is starting to reach its terminal velocity and the amount of gravitational potential energy that is being increased is starting to become less effective because the car can not travel any faster after it has reached its terminal velocity.The gradient between points nineteen centimetres on the average point and twenty centimetres on the average point is almost zero. This is because the car has almost reached its terminal velocity and can not travel much further even if the car has more gravitational potential energy.The graph shows us that the gradient on the left side of the graph is larger them the gradient on the right side of the graph. This is because the gravitational potential energy is larger, meaning that there is more kinetic energy so that the car can travel further because there is more energy to counteract the friction of the ground. This means that the distance between the averages will be larger because the car is travelling further.The graph shows us that the height up the ramp is directly proportional to the distance travelled, but there are some outlier averages on the graph at average points twelve centimetres up the ramp, thirteen centimetres up the ramp and sixteen centimetres up the ramp. This is because at the height up the ramp of twelve centimetres, the average distance travelled is larger then the distance travelled at fourteen centimetres, fifteen centimetres and seventeen centimetres.Because my results on the graph are very scattered and the error bars are large, I am not confident in the reliability of my conclusion. The scatter of results should go up in a straight line had the experiment had more reliable results, but instead the averages of points twelve, thirteen and sixteen are quite far from the line of best fit.The mathematical expression for my experimentN= Newtonsx= TimesX= The X amount of something.J= JoulesLoss of gravitational potential energy = weight (N) x vertical height change (M)= X amount of joules (J)Loss of gravitational potential energy = Gain in kinetic energyGain in kinetic energy = X amount of JHalf x Mass x (Velocity) squared = X amount of JMultiply both sides by 2: Mass x (Velocity) squared = 2 x X amount of JDivide both sides by the Mass: (Velocity) squared = 2 x X amount of JMassVelocity = The square root of: 2 x X amount of JMassExplanation of my conclusionThe results of the graph should be a straight line through each average and the error bars should be fairly small. This is because in the experiment the factors for each point should each point should be the same apart from the variable that I am changing and the distance travelled. The distance of the car is affected by the gravitational potential energy, which then changes into kinetic energy, the friction and the work done of the car. As the car comes down the ramp it should keep on gaining more and more speed due to the gravitational potential energy that the car has until it reaches its termi nal velocity. Then as the car comes off the ramp the energy is converted into kinetic energy and the ground should starts to apply friction to the work done by the car and eventually slows the car down. The friction that is applied should be the same each time if the car goes down the same surface each time. That is why the car travels further when the car comes down the ramp from a higher distance, because the car has more gravitational potential energy to counteract the friction.Because the scatter of the graph is quite varied and there are points quite far off the line of best fit and the error bars are large, I am not confident in the reliability of my experiment. The fact that the car had a higher average at the average points for twelve centimetres and thirteen centimetres may have been because there was less friction because I used a different part of the floor for those measurements; this may have meant that the floor was smoother and therefore the car travelled further beca use of less friction. The fact that the car travelled further may have been because of the fact that I accidentally pushed the car a little bit more then others at the beginning, giving the car a higher velocity and meaning that the car could travel faster and further. This all could explain the scatter of my graph, but it could have also been that the apparatus was not very accurate meaning that my results are not very reliable.MethodThere were a few limitations to accuracy with my experiment which were:* The use of different parts of the floor when taking measurements: This could have caused my results to be less accurate because the friction could have been less or more depending on the surface of the floor.* The measuring of the distance that the car had travelled: This could have caused my results to be less accurate because it was hard to take an exact measurement of the distance that the car travelled without moving the car back and forth.* The measurement of the car up the r amp: This could have caused my results to be less accurate because it was hard to take an exact measurement of the distance of the car up the ramp with the naked eye.How I would improve my investigation:The way that I would improve my experiment would be:* I would use one of the ramps that the car starts off on for the distance travelled and by using the same one each time the same amount of friction would be used and there would be nothing on the ramp that there might be on the floor to slow the car down. This would mean that my results would be more accurate.* I would use a ruler to measure out the distance travelled which would mean that the reading of the distance was more reliable and that I would not have to move the car in measuring the distance meaning that my results would be more accurate.* To make sure that the measurement of the car up the ramp is exact I would use a ruler to mark out an exact measurement so that the car starts off from the correct distance up the ramp. This will make my results more accurate because it will show an accurate distance that the car should travel.DataDuring my test there were twenty outliers. This was because the test was not accurate and there were certain factors that could have caused these outliers. The graph should be directly proportional meaning that as the height of the car up the ramp increased, so should the distance travelled by the car. This is because I used the same car throughout the experiment meaning that the terminal velocity was the same and there would be no change to the weight of the car. However this was not the case on my graph due to the fact that there was a large of scatter of results in my repeats and my error bars were very big. The reason why there were a lot of outliers was because of these factors:* The car rolled to the side and hit the ruler meaning that the car slowed down too much, which meant that the distance travelled was shorter.* Before I released the car I may have pushed the car by accident meaning that the car had more velocity due to the fact I applied a larger force to it.* The car hit something on the ground slowing it down or moving it in the wrong direction.* The car went off in the wrong direction after coming off the ramp meaning that it travelled a smaller distance.ReliabilityBecause there are twenty outliers in my data and the range of the repeats is large, I am not confident in my conclusion. The scatter of the graph should have been a straight line going up because the results should have been directly proportional. The results from my test are unreliable because of the large range of the repeats. The apparatus was not very accurate and that would have affected the reliability of my results, this would explain the scatter of the graph.I would have been more confident in my results had I used the apparatus that I have described because I believe that I would have had a more accurate apparatus and therefore more reliable results. I would have been more confident in my results had my technique been better, but if I had used the technique and apparatus I described in my evaluation making sure that all the factors that could affect the distance that the car travelled were controlled properly, then I would be more confident in the results that I have got.