Download Video File to the Right. -------------------------->
|
![]()
|
- Was air resistance noticeable?
Claim: I think that air resistance was Present , according to the graphs.
Evidence: Air Resistance was noticeable because the ups and downs on the Velocity graphs show that the projectile (me) was impacted by something, most like air. Thus, we can conclude that the Projectile (me) was impacted by air resistance. The line for the Y graph show that the velocity was decreasing, Meaning the projectile(me) was slowing down. The Velocity Y graph has other up and down points, but it shows the main image of a downward graph. These graphs may be inaccurate though because of the program used,tracker and the manual tracking done instead of a more accurate auto tracker .
Reasoning: The Projectile (me) was impacted by air resistance, the proof is in the ups and downs on the Velocity-X Position. The ups and downs on the graph show that air resistance was noticeable because, if air resistance wasn't noticeable it wouldn't be seen on the graph. Also, the Y-velocity graphs show that velocity was decreasing. The velocity wouldn't be decreasing unless there is an equal or greater force opposing it, thus the opposing force is air resistance.
- Was energy conserved?
Claim: I think that energy was conserved according to the graphs.
Evidence: The graph for total mechanical energy shows that energy was conserved because the line for the graph remains constant. The constant line shows that energy did not change , which thus means it was conserved. If the line was very bumpy with a lot of ups and downs then the energy was not conserved because it was constantly changing. The very little ups and downs visible on the graph are just mistakes in the tracking of the projectile (me).
Reasoning: The Projectile (me) energy was conserved, the proof is the graph. A more unstable looking graph means that energy changed, which means that energy was not conserved. This graph, on the other hand is stable looking which means that energy was being conserved.
- Was momentum conserved?
Claim: I do not think that momentum was conserved, according to the graphs.
Evidence: The graphs shows that momentum was gained and then loss, repeatedly, which means that momentum was not conserved. The Law of conservation of momentum, states that momentum does not change unless a stronger opposing force is present. And in this case momentum was changed, by constantly gaining and losing the momentum, the air resistance present must be strong enough to be an opposing force. If the air resistance is not strong enough then this experiment breaks the law of conservation of momentum, because there is no stronger opposing force.
Reasoning: According to the graphs the Projectile's (me) momentum was not conserved. Momentum was not conserved because the graphs show constant upward and downward motions showing a gain and loss in momentum. The Law of conservation of momentum is true which means that air resistance must be the force which affects the momentum, because there is not other known force present to affect the projectiles (me) momentum.