1213+Marble+and+Ramp


 * 1) Each group measured the effect of an independent variable on the speed of a marble after it left the ramp.

The effect of ramp angle on marble speed.

By Annie & **Elena**
 * Independent variable ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Angle of Release point || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || Average || Kinetic Energy || Potential Energy ||  ||
 * > 11cm ||> 2.52s ||> 2.43s ||> 2.51s ||> 2.62s ||> 2.52s ||> 0.0017J ||> 0.0058212J ||> 29 .2％ ||
 * > 27cm ||> 1.29s ||> 1.19s ||> 1.23s ||> 1.14s ||> 1.21s ||> 0.00395J ||> 0.0145J ||> 27.2％ ||
 * > 54cm ||> 1.05s ||> 1.01s ||> 1.02s ||> 1.00s ||> 1.02s ||> 0.0028J ||> 0.029J ||> 9.64％ ||

By **Shannon** and Kevin
 * marble angle || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || kinetic energy || potential energy || percentage ||
 * 5 || 1.84 || 1.80 || 1.81 || 1.85 || 0.08993 || 0.027783 || 97% ||
 * 10 || 1.74 || 1.58 || 1.55 || 1.67 || 0.006497 || 0.018522 || 35% ||
 * 15 || 1.30 || 1.38 || 1.21 || 1.41 || 0.009261 || 0.009261 || 17% ||

The effect of ramp length on marble speed
 * Ramp length(cm) || 1(m/s) || 2(m/s) || 3(m/s) || 4(m/s) || Kinetic Energy(J) || Potential Energy(J) || % of original potential energy ||
 * 188.5 || 2.42 || 2.50 || 2.61 || 2.70 || 0.018 || 0.03 || 60% ||
 * 94.3 || 1.74 || 1.82 || 1.73 || 1.64 || 0.0081 || 0.015 || 54% ||
 * 47.1 || 1.19 || 1.22 || 1.18 || 1.18 || 0.0038 || 0.0075 || 51% ||

by **Sho** and Kimmy

The effect of different marbles on marble speed


 * Type of marble || #1 (m/s) || #2 (m/s) || #3 (m/s) || Potential Energy (J) || Kinetic Energy (J) || % of original potential energy left in kinetic energy ||
 * Glass marble || 3.01 || 2.95 || 2.98 || .05 || .0238 || 47.6% ||
 * Big BB || 3.14 || 3.16 || 3.17 || .03 || .0175 || 58.3% ||
 * Small BB || 4.36 || 4.08 || 4.09 || .005 || .0044 || 88% ||

By Alex, Sam, **Shane**

The effect of ramp length on marble speed

Energy (Joules) || Percentage of the Kinetic Energy of the Potential Energy (%) ||
 * Height of Release Point (cm) || Trial 1 (m/s) || Trial 2 (m/s) || Trial 3 (m/s) || Trial 4 (m/s) || Average (m/s) || Potential Energy (Joules) || Kinetic
 * 85 || 2.92 || 2.96 || 2.82 || 2.89 || 2.90 || 0.045 || 0.0227 || 50 ||
 * 65 || 2.62 || 2.66 || 2.49 || 2.58 || 2.59 || 0.0344 || 0.018 || 52 ||
 * 45 || 2.00 || 2.06 || 2.16 || 2.08 || 2.08 || 0.0238 || 0.01168 || 49 ||
 * 25 || 1.61 || 1.52 || 1.60 || 1.57 || 1.58 || 0.01323 || 0.00674 || 51 ||

Type of marble: Normal round glass marble Distance after marble starts rolling: 5 meters Surface marble rolled on: Hallway outside of science labs Height at the top of the ramp: 85 cm Used the normal metal ramp with no holes. Total ramp length: 2 meters

By: Suki and Nick

by Suki and **Nick**

The Effect of Ramp Angle on the Speed of a Marble with 0.0137J of Potential Energy Notes: used a big BB released from 25cm above ground measured length of 10 hallway tiles By Spencer and **Tian**
 * || Trial 1 (seconds) || Trial 2 (seconds) || Trial 3 (seconds) || Kinetic Energy (joules) || Percentage of Original Kinetic Energy ||
 * 10º angle || 2.61 || 2.64 || 2.85 || 0.0023 || 16.9% ||
 * 20º angle || 2.47 || 2.50 || 2.73 || 0.0025 || 18.2% ||
 * 30º angle || 2.66 || 2.74 || 2.80 || 0.0023 || 16.9% ||

Writing a conclusion for the lab.

In the first paragraph, describe the experiment's purpose and procedure. In the second paragraph, describe the results of the lab. > What does this comparison show you?
 * Identify the independent, dependent, and controlled variables.
 * Describe how the measurements were made.
 * How much energy was conserved in your trials? Are there any interesting patterns or trends in the data.
 * Can you think of one or more reasons that the amount of energy conserved was less than 100%?
 * Compare your results with those of one or two more groups. Explain why you chose those groups as a comparison.

The students whose names are shown in boldface (above) gave presentations to the class. In the presentations, they described the independent variable, the results, and the controlled variables. The purpose of the presentation was to shine a spotlight on each groups data. The presenter commented on results and identified which trials conserved the most energy.