Time (seconds)
|
Trial #1
|
Trail #2
|
Trail #3
|
Trail #4
|
Trail#5
|
Average
|
Uncertainty
|
2
|
59
|
59
|
60
|
60
|
61
|
60
|
+/- 0.95
|
4
|
123
|
117
|
116
|
119
|
120
|
119
|
+/- 3
|
6
|
184
|
179
|
180
|
178
|
180
|
180
|
+/- 1.5
|
8
|
284
|
281
|
280
|
281
|
283
|
281
|
+/- 1.5
|
10
|
393
|
390
|
392
|
390
|
391
|
391
|
+/- 1.5
|
Graph:
Mathematical Relationship:
Time= 41.3 (cm/second) * Distance -41.2
^ In theory, this number should be zero
Explanation of uncertainty:
Due to human error, the uncertainty in the X- axis was 0.2 seconds.
The uncertainty in the Y-axis was originally 3 cm because the largest range of measurements was 6 cm (divided by 2= three centimeters.) However, due to the nature of the car, in that it did not drive in a strait line, i had to add a large uncertainty (25cm) to account for the curved path of the tumble buggy. This is also the reason for the presence of a y-intercept (when theoretically there should not be one.)
Sonia, good justification for your uncertainty and nice graph.
ReplyDeleteDoublecheck your mathematical relationship - it looks like you switched the IV and DV.
In your data tables, you're missing your measurement uncertainty. Also, your statistical uncertainty should be reported to just 1 sig fig.