Unit 3 test reflection...

Unit 3 test reflection:


Reflect on the exam

Look through the objectives from the Unit sheet.  Rank yourself 0-4 on the unit sheet in the "end of unit" column.

1. Which objective do you think you did the best on?  Why?  

               "Objective 3 - Translating Graphs" is the objective that I think I did the best on because we spent such a long time reviewing this objective in class (especially the worksheet with all the little graphs on it that we had to translate.) 

2. Which objective do you think you need the most improvement on?  Why?

          "Objective 4 - Solving Problems" is the objective that i think i did the worst on because those were the only problems that i was really confused on the test about. I still do not understand fully how to use the kinematic equations.

3. What can you do to improve on the objective you may still need help on?

           
             I could use the "remediation" links BEFORE the test to help study these problems and be more prepared for the questions that are on the test. 

Buggy Lab Reflection

Buggy Lab Reflection Blog Prompt:

   
    1. Reflect on your design section.  What did you do well?  What do you need to improve next time?

      The biggest thing that should be fixed in order to improve the data collected in this lab is the curved path of the buggy. In the future the buggy could placed up against the wall to keep the buggy driving in a straight line. We did a good job with the number of IV levels, the number of trials in each IV levels, and listing the controls. 

    2. Reflect on your data collection and processing section. What did you do well?  What do you need to improve next time?

    However, our data collection procedure was good in that the times were similar within each trial.  Due to this high precision, we had low uncertainty in the times (on the x-axis.) The uncertainty in the y-axis was calculated well because I first calculated the simple uncertainty, then accounted for the buggy's curved path of travel. 

    3. Reflect on your conclusion.  What did you do well?  What do you need to improve next time?

      

        I did a good job with the conclusion. First, I explained the mathematical relationship between the time and the distance traveled well. However, for the next time the min. and max. lines should be calculated to prove that the y-intercept could be O (because there should not be a y-intercept in this lab- at 0 seconds the buggy has traveled 0 centimeters.)

   

    4. Do you think revising after the feedback session in class improved your lab report?

        Yes, the feedback session helped catch little mistakes that I did not originally catch. However, I do not believe that anyone in our class has a good enough grasp on how the reports should be formatted yet to make any big corrections.

    5. Was the turnitin feedback helpful?  If so, what should Mrs. Weidman keep doing.  If not, what would be more helpful?

Yes, it was helpful! I like how the comments were right on top of the part of the lab in question- so there is no confusion in what you are concerned about.  

Constant Force Lab

Acceleration Lab

            Does the mass of the car effect its acceleration? The independent variable will be the mass (g) of the car, and the resulting acceleration (m/s) of the car. The purpose of this experiment is to determine whether or not the mass of an object will effect the acceleration of the object. A low friction car, track, and pulley were used to greatly decrease the effect of friction on this experiment
           The variables that were held constant are as follows: the incline of the track, units used for measuring, the car was started at the same point for each trail, the method of releasing the car, and the apparatus used  (same car, track, masses, string, pulley, motion censor, and program used for analyzing the motion censor's data.) The incline of the track was held constant by placing the track on a flat surface, which kept the track horizontal (no incline.) The units of the masses remained in grams throughout the experiment, and the velocity was measured in meters per second for each trial. The car was started with the back end of it equal to the 25 cm marker on the track each time to ensure it had an equal distance in which to accelerate. When the car was released no additional force was added to the car- to achieve this release the finger that held the car at rest at it's initial position was simply lifted straight up and off the car, making certain to avoid moving in front of the motion censor. To further keep this method of release constant, the same experimenter released the car for each trail.   Lastly, by using the same apparatus throughout each of the trails the car, track, masses, string, pulley, motion censor, and program used to analyze the motion censor's data remained constant.
          The first IV level is the control group (490 g), in that no additional mass was added to the car. In the next four IV levels (690 g, 890 g, 1090 g, and 1290 g) 200 grams were added each time because it was believed that 200 grams would create a noticeable difference in acceleration without overloading the equipment with too much weight. The procedure was repeated for five trials at each IV level. By averaging the data from all of the trials, the a relatively reliable representation of the true acceleration be can found. Whereas, if only one measurement was taken the chance of error in that one point would be much higher.
         The apparatus was assembled (as shown above) with a car resting on a low friction track, a paperclip is used to attach the string to the car, the string is then run through the low friction pulley, and a 50 gram mass was added to the end of the string so the string is pulled taught. A motion detector is added to the end of the track and then the motion detector is plugged into the computer so that the data from the motion censor can be read on the computer screen in Logger Pro. First, the "collect" button is pushed on logger pro in order the begin the collection of data. Second, the car is released from the 25 cm marker on the track  (25 cm from the end of the track)  without exerting any extra force on the car. Next, when the car reaches the end of the track, the "end" button in Logger Pro is pushed to stop the program from collecting data. Finally, the average slope of the velocity-time graph (for the time the car was accelerating)  is taken in order to determine the average acceleration of the car.

      The curve in the first graph implies that the graph may be an inverse equation. Assuming it's an inverse equation, the equation for the curve is: Acceleration (m/s)= 293.6 (+/- 48.77) / Mass (g.)
The second graph shows the linearized data, and the min and max lines.

Unit 4 Test reflection

I think I did we'll on the free body diagram objective (objective 3) because I feel like that was the objective that we covered most thoroughly in class. Also, when I was studying (especially during the after school study session) I focused on that objective. I had trouble with some of objective 4 because I did not have a goo grasp on resultant vectors. I remembered how to do component vectors, but had a hard time both finding the resultant vector as well a defining a resultant vector (I guess that would fall under objective 1- vocabulary) I didn't like how many multiple choice questions there were. I am not a fan of the multiple choice questions because they are all or nothing, so one small mistake can make a huge negative impact in your grade...plus I don't feel like it shows your true knowledge of the objective.