Impulse and Momentum Conservation

Lab
Gage Ames
Zack Armagost, Em DeLarme, Skylar Buriak, Megan Kephart,
Kristen Day, and Lauren Thomson
Physics - Period 2

Friday, February 13, 2009

Purpose
To find the force and velocity of objects during a collision and use these
measurement to calculate the momentum change and verify the law of conservation of
momentum.

Background Information
The Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the momentum of a system
remains unchanged in the absence of external forces. A good demonstration of this
principle exists in collisions. When collisions occur, the momentum of the system as a
whole remains the same. Momentum is transferred from one of the objects to the other.
How much momentum is transferred and how it is transferred changes with the type of
collision.
The two main types of collisions are elastic and inelastic. In an elastic collision
the objects bounce off of each other after the collision. They therefore do not travel as
one object, but as two individual objects. Inelastic collisions are just the opposite: the
objects become tangled and move together after the collision. The two individual
moving objects turn into one moving object.

Equipment and Setup

Dynamics track
Dynamics carts
Mass for cart
Vernier LabPro with USB cable
Two photogates
Force sensor (50 N range)
Laptop computer with Vernier Logger-Pro software
Electronic balance.

Setup
Photogate 1

Dynamics cart

Photogate 2

Force sensor
cable
plugged into
CH 1
Photogate in
DIG/SONIC 1

Laptop
Force
probe

USB cable to
computer

Vernier
LabPro

Procedural Summary
In this lab we used photogates and a force probe along with a computer to record
the velocities and times of dynamic carts during different collisions. We used a force
probe and a photogate to gather information used to calculate impulses. Then we used
two photogates to record the velocities and times of the dynamic carts during different
collisions with each other.

Data
Part 1
Trail
#
1
2
3
4
5
6

Mass of
cart

Mean
force

Time at
collision
end
2.3851 s

Velocity
before
collision
0.249 m/s

Velocity after
collision

9.013 N

Time at
collision
start
2.3662 s

518.5 g
518.5 g

11.16 N

2.0995 s

2.1226 s

0.363 m/s

0.170 m/s

518.5 g

14.36 N

1.8990 s

1.9171 s

0.376 m/s

0.170 m/s

518.5 g

3.325 N

1.3955 s

1.4518 s

0.262 m/s

0.111 m/s

518.5 g

4.670 N

1.9238 s

1.9752 s

0.297 m/s

0.134 m/s

518.5 g

9.132 N

1.8208 s

1.8538 s

0.388 m/s

0.186 m/s

0.102 m/s

Part 2
Trial #

Cart 1 mass

cart 1 vi

cart 1 vf

Cart 2 mass

cart 2 vi

cart 2 vf

518.7 g

3.103 m/s

2.270 m/s

518.0 g

2.590 m/s

2.755 m/s

1017.0 g

1.188 m/s

0.822 m/s

517.7 g

0.0 m/s

5.205 m/s

517.0 g

2.619 m/s

0.888 m/s

1017.7 g

0.0 m/s

1.629 m/s

Trial #

Cart 1 mass

cart 1 vi

Cart 2 mass

cart 2 vi

vboth final

517.0 g

3.058 m/s

517.7 g

2.389 m/s

0.289 m/s

1017.0 g

3.195 m/s

517.7 g

0.0 m/s

1.919 m/s

517.0 g

5.042 m/s

1017.7 g

0.0 m/s

1.469 m/s

Calculations
Part 1
Trial #

Change in momentum (p)

Impulse (J)

(0.5185 kg * 0.102 m/s)

(0.5185 kg * 0.249 m/s) =
0.1820 kg*m/s

2.3851 s 2.3663 s =
0.0189 s
0.0189 s * 9.013 N =
0.1703457 J

0.2764 kg*m/s

0.257796 J

0.2831 kg*m/s

0.259916 J

0.1934 kg*m/s

0.1871975 J

0.2235 kg*m/s

0.240038 J

0.2976 kg*m/s

0.301356 J

Part 2
Trial

2
3
Trial

cart 1
pbefore

cart 2
pbefore

Total
pbefore

cart 1 pafter

cart 2 pafter

Total pafter

0.5187
kg *
3.103
m/s =
1.60952
61
kg*m/s
1.20819
6 kg*m/s

0.5180 kg
* 2.590
m/s =
1.34162
kg*m/s

1.609526
1 kg*m/s
1.34162
kg*m/s =
0.267906
1 kg*m/s

0.5187 kg
* 2.270
m/s =
1.177449
kg*m/s

0.5180 kg
* 2.755
m/s =
1.42709
kg*m/s

0 kg*m/s

1.208196
kg*m/s

0.835974
kg*m/s

2.694628
5 kg*m/s

1.177449
kg*m/s +
1.42709
kg*m/s =
0.249641
kg*m/s
1.858654
5 kg*m/s

1.35402
3 kg*m/s

0 kg*m/s

1.354023
kg*m/s

0.459096
kg*m/s

1.657833
3 kg*m/s

1.198737
kg*m/s

cart 1
pbefore

cart 2
pbefore

Total
pbefore

both pafter

Total pafter

1.58098
6 kg*m/s

0.342007
kg*m/s

0.2990283
kg*m/s

0.299028
3 kg*m/s

3.24931
5 kg*m/s
2.60671
4 kg*m/s

1.236785
3 kg*m/s
0 kg*m/s

3.249315
kg*m/s
2.606714
kg*m/s

2.9450893
kg*m/s
2.2544743
kg*m/s

2.945089
3 kg*m/s
2.254474
3 kg*m/s

0 kg*m/s

Graphs
Part 1, Trial 1

Part 1, Trial 2

Part 1, Trial 3

Part 1, Trial 4

Part 1, Trial 5

Part 1, Trial 6

Error Analysis
The error in this lab likely came from the fact that friction had some effect on the
movement of the carts on the track. The friction would have decreased the velocities of
the carts. This means that the momentums of the carts were not completely conserved
due to the presence of friction. Further proof of this is that when the weights were
added to the cart, the error seemed to increase. This makes sense because the more
massive an object it, the more friction it will experience. This caused our velocities to
decrease even more and yield slightly skewed results. Another source of error is the
human perception of the graphs. While the Logger Pro software did the calculations,
we had to select the area for it to calculate. We may have selected an area slightly
smaller or larger than was correct. This would not produce an extremely large amount
of error, but it does make the results less than perfect.
Part 1
Trial #

Percent Error

(0.1820 kg*m/s +
0.1703457 J)/(
0.1703457 J) = 6.84 %
7.22 %

8.92 %

3.31 %

6.89 %

1.25 %

Part 2
Trial

Error

0.2679061 kg*m/s 0.249641

kg*m/s = 0.0182651 kg*m/s
0.6504585 kg*m/s

0.155286 kg*m/s

0.0451724 kg*m/s

0.3042257 kg*m/s

0.3522397 kg*m/s

Questions and Conclusions

Questions
1) The cotton ball decreased the mean force and increased the velocity after the
collision. Not as much force was transferred when the cart hit the force probe,
which means it had a slightly greater velocity when is bounced back.
The cotton ball increased the length of the collision in terms of time.
2) The total momentum before and after never exactly equaled each other, but
some of the trials were relatively close. Trials two and four showed the greatest
deviation. This was likely caused by friction between the cars and the track.
3) The main difference I observed between the elastic and inelastic collisions is that
the inelastic collisions caused a greater decrease in velocity afterward. This
means that the inelastic collisions cause more of the momentum to be absorbed
when the carts hit each other. The elastic collisions did not cause as great of a
loss in velocity, which is a good demonstration of how elastic collisions conserve
kinetic energy.
Conclusion
Overall this was a successful lab. The dynamic carts are a great way to
demonstrate the concepts of momentum and collisions. Even without numeric data,
the dynamic carts allowed me to see what happens before, during, and after a
collision. The numeric data was helpful too, though. It allowed us to find the
momentum of the carts before and after the collisions and see how well the
momentum was conserved, which was the purpose of the lab. Our numbers were not
perfect, but, taking friction into account, they werent bad. They were close enough to
convince me that the momentum was conserved in every situation.
If I were to perform this lab again I would have the same person push the cart
each time to eliminate any differences in the way people push the carts. I would also
try to collect all of the data for each part in one period. This avoids differences in
setup like placement of the photo gates.