Final Mousetrap car report
a. Newton’s first which states that and object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless a net force acts upon it relates to the mousetrap car because It helped Natalia and I understand what the reasons for our law applies to the performance of my car because on our nonsuccess with the car due to friction. We learned that the car wanted to continue to move, but because certain things like the placement of the wheels got in the way, it was not able to go the 5-meter requirement. Newton’s second law, which states that acceleration is equal to net force over the mass of the object also relates to the car. During our journey, we realized that the car was not able to go very far because it did not have a big enough force exerted on it. Because a=fnet/m, we realized that we needed to add a greater net force in order for the mousetrap car to accelerate so we added a weight to the car. Once we added the weight, we noticed a significant improvement in the car’s speed and distance because it was given more acceleration. Newton’s third law also applied to our project. The third law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I was able to connect this to the car’s situation because the energy that propelled the wheels was the energy that was derived from the mousetrap, and so the mousetrap's equal and opposite reaction was to accelerate. Another action and reaction pair that I noticed was when I pulled the actual trap backwards in order to wind the wheels up, the trap would push forwards. Going back to Newton’s first law, the trap wanted to stay at rest, but I was the net force that acted upon the trap, and so it was set into motion!
b. The two types of friction present in the mousetrap car were the friction on the wheels against the ground and the friction within the axel and lever arm. On our car, friction was increased for stability on the wheels by using duck tape on the edges of the back wheels and rubber wheels on the front. In order to make sure the axel for the wheels would not rub the actual mousetrap we had to set them a significant distance apart, because if they were to touch, the car would apply friction to the axel and slow the rotation of the wheels down immensely. We also had to make sure that the wheels were able to turn easily on the laminate flooring, and so we chose to have rubber on the front wheels to provide traction and support, and duck tape on the edge of the back wheels to increase the overall stability of the car, which helped greatly!
c. When deciding the number of wheels, we chose to have four because it would balance and stabilize the mousetrap, but we did not think the size of the wheels would be very important, but we were wrong. We started with two larger wheels at the back of the car and two smaller wheels at the front in order for the larger wheels to propel the smaller ones with more force, but still the wheels were only about 1-2 inches long, and relatively small. We began trying different ways to increase the speed in the middle of the mousetrap car process without realizing that the wheels might be the problem until the were end. Towards the end of our project, we decided to try CDs as our back two wheels because the more rotational inertia would mean the greater distance achieved in each rotation; which would ultimately make the car faster, and so the CDs with a cardboard support system were put on the mousetrap car, and did make the car measurably faster!
d. The conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but transformed from one form to another relates to how our car was powered. By having a long lever arm, we increased the amount of energy and torque within the lever, and as we pushed it further back, the PE was increased. Once we let go the PE transformed to KE and propelled the car forwards. Once we kept our lever arm the same, it was only a matter of properly winding the lever arm up and letting go carefully to power the car to go far distances, since the amount of energy in the car did not change. As the car was moving, it was using the spring’s energy and transforming it to kinetic energy, but while we were winding the car up, it was storing the energy as potential energy, for when the lever arm was let go.
e. The length of the lever arm on the mousetrap car was an aspect of the car that changed frequently along with small changes with the car. We started with a relatively small lever arm, believing that the length would not matter for the 5m distance that was required, but as we progressed in the project, we realized that in order to go the distance, a much longer lever arm would be needed. Using kabob sticks, we connected the longer lever arm to the trap, but the more it was used, the weaker the wood became because the force of the lever arm was so strong. We made adjustments to the wooden stick and used a metal stick instead, which seemed to make the car go much faster. With the knowledge that torque=lever arm x force I knew that in order to make the car have more torque and eventually go faster, a larger lever arm was needed, and the force of the heavier metal stick propelled the car. The further back the car’s lever arm was pulled, the more force that was created, which made the power output of the mousetrap car greater.
f. Rotational Inertia and Rotational Velocity and Tangential Velocity all related to the tires’ size and rotation. At the beginning, we used relatively small wheels that we got from the dollar store, but trial after trial, the car wouldn’t go very far, and I realized that if the rotational inertia was increased by having larger tires, and therefore having the wheels cover a larger distance per rotation, along with increasing the rate of rotation. To fix the wheel problem, we decided to use CDs as wheels and support them by putting cardboard around the wheels so that the wheels would be stabilized. Once the rotational inertia was increased with the larger tires, and it was covering a larger distance per rotation the car substantially increased in speed.
g. We are not able to calculate the amount of work the spring does on the car because work=force x distance and in order to find this out we must know the force that the spring exerts on the car, which is impossible for us to find out without using special devices. Potential energy=mass x gravity x height, but the spring has a force of its own that we are not able to calculate. Because the change in KE=the change in PE, and we are not able to calculate the force, we are also not able to calculate how much KE and PE there is at one time while the spring does work. A=fnet/m, and although we know the mass, we still do not know the net force that the spring exerts on the rest of the car, and therefore we are not able to calculate the acceleration.
Reflection
a. Over the course of the entire mousetrap project, our plans and car changed drastically. We started out planning on using much smaller wheels for our car, along with a lever arm that is about 3x as small as the lever that we ended up using. As we made adjustments, we learned what helped and did not help the car, such as larger wheels made the car cover a larger distance per rotation, and a larger lever arm increased the torque of the car, giving it the ability to go a longer distance. In order to succeed, we had to make the changes when we saw that our car was lacking speed and stability, and so we made the wheels much more stable with a support system made out of cardboard. I would say that we definitely learned from our mistakes.
b. Starting out with smaller wheels definitely set us back, but when we decided to change the wheels for a larger set, even bigger problems we raised. We were not able to find stable wheels, and so we made them out of cardboard and paper cups. After trying the wheels out a few times, the car fell apart, and then we really needed to find more stable wheels that would not go lopsided while in motion. After finally finding 2 CDs as back wheels, we felt that we were prepared again to go forward in the competition once they had a secure support system of duck tape and cardboard sides.
c. Seeing that we have yet to finish the car, in the future I would start out my making sure that my mousetrap had very stable wheels and a larger basis for the car that uses more than just the trap in order to provide force and increase the work. Knowing what I know now, I would have also immediately increased the lever arm to hope that it would help propel the car more. Although the project was at times frustrating and challenging, it was fun way to incorporate everything that we have learned this year into a project!
a. Newton’s first which states that and object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless a net force acts upon it relates to the mousetrap car because It helped Natalia and I understand what the reasons for our law applies to the performance of my car because on our nonsuccess with the car due to friction. We learned that the car wanted to continue to move, but because certain things like the placement of the wheels got in the way, it was not able to go the 5-meter requirement. Newton’s second law, which states that acceleration is equal to net force over the mass of the object also relates to the car. During our journey, we realized that the car was not able to go very far because it did not have a big enough force exerted on it. Because a=fnet/m, we realized that we needed to add a greater net force in order for the mousetrap car to accelerate so we added a weight to the car. Once we added the weight, we noticed a significant improvement in the car’s speed and distance because it was given more acceleration. Newton’s third law also applied to our project. The third law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I was able to connect this to the car’s situation because the energy that propelled the wheels was the energy that was derived from the mousetrap, and so the mousetrap's equal and opposite reaction was to accelerate. Another action and reaction pair that I noticed was when I pulled the actual trap backwards in order to wind the wheels up, the trap would push forwards. Going back to Newton’s first law, the trap wanted to stay at rest, but I was the net force that acted upon the trap, and so it was set into motion!
b. The two types of friction present in the mousetrap car were the friction on the wheels against the ground and the friction within the axel and lever arm. On our car, friction was increased for stability on the wheels by using duck tape on the edges of the back wheels and rubber wheels on the front. In order to make sure the axel for the wheels would not rub the actual mousetrap we had to set them a significant distance apart, because if they were to touch, the car would apply friction to the axel and slow the rotation of the wheels down immensely. We also had to make sure that the wheels were able to turn easily on the laminate flooring, and so we chose to have rubber on the front wheels to provide traction and support, and duck tape on the edge of the back wheels to increase the overall stability of the car, which helped greatly!
c. When deciding the number of wheels, we chose to have four because it would balance and stabilize the mousetrap, but we did not think the size of the wheels would be very important, but we were wrong. We started with two larger wheels at the back of the car and two smaller wheels at the front in order for the larger wheels to propel the smaller ones with more force, but still the wheels were only about 1-2 inches long, and relatively small. We began trying different ways to increase the speed in the middle of the mousetrap car process without realizing that the wheels might be the problem until the were end. Towards the end of our project, we decided to try CDs as our back two wheels because the more rotational inertia would mean the greater distance achieved in each rotation; which would ultimately make the car faster, and so the CDs with a cardboard support system were put on the mousetrap car, and did make the car measurably faster!
d. The conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but transformed from one form to another relates to how our car was powered. By having a long lever arm, we increased the amount of energy and torque within the lever, and as we pushed it further back, the PE was increased. Once we let go the PE transformed to KE and propelled the car forwards. Once we kept our lever arm the same, it was only a matter of properly winding the lever arm up and letting go carefully to power the car to go far distances, since the amount of energy in the car did not change. As the car was moving, it was using the spring’s energy and transforming it to kinetic energy, but while we were winding the car up, it was storing the energy as potential energy, for when the lever arm was let go.
e. The length of the lever arm on the mousetrap car was an aspect of the car that changed frequently along with small changes with the car. We started with a relatively small lever arm, believing that the length would not matter for the 5m distance that was required, but as we progressed in the project, we realized that in order to go the distance, a much longer lever arm would be needed. Using kabob sticks, we connected the longer lever arm to the trap, but the more it was used, the weaker the wood became because the force of the lever arm was so strong. We made adjustments to the wooden stick and used a metal stick instead, which seemed to make the car go much faster. With the knowledge that torque=lever arm x force I knew that in order to make the car have more torque and eventually go faster, a larger lever arm was needed, and the force of the heavier metal stick propelled the car. The further back the car’s lever arm was pulled, the more force that was created, which made the power output of the mousetrap car greater.
f. Rotational Inertia and Rotational Velocity and Tangential Velocity all related to the tires’ size and rotation. At the beginning, we used relatively small wheels that we got from the dollar store, but trial after trial, the car wouldn’t go very far, and I realized that if the rotational inertia was increased by having larger tires, and therefore having the wheels cover a larger distance per rotation, along with increasing the rate of rotation. To fix the wheel problem, we decided to use CDs as wheels and support them by putting cardboard around the wheels so that the wheels would be stabilized. Once the rotational inertia was increased with the larger tires, and it was covering a larger distance per rotation the car substantially increased in speed.
g. We are not able to calculate the amount of work the spring does on the car because work=force x distance and in order to find this out we must know the force that the spring exerts on the car, which is impossible for us to find out without using special devices. Potential energy=mass x gravity x height, but the spring has a force of its own that we are not able to calculate. Because the change in KE=the change in PE, and we are not able to calculate the force, we are also not able to calculate how much KE and PE there is at one time while the spring does work. A=fnet/m, and although we know the mass, we still do not know the net force that the spring exerts on the rest of the car, and therefore we are not able to calculate the acceleration.
Reflection
a. Over the course of the entire mousetrap project, our plans and car changed drastically. We started out planning on using much smaller wheels for our car, along with a lever arm that is about 3x as small as the lever that we ended up using. As we made adjustments, we learned what helped and did not help the car, such as larger wheels made the car cover a larger distance per rotation, and a larger lever arm increased the torque of the car, giving it the ability to go a longer distance. In order to succeed, we had to make the changes when we saw that our car was lacking speed and stability, and so we made the wheels much more stable with a support system made out of cardboard. I would say that we definitely learned from our mistakes.
b. Starting out with smaller wheels definitely set us back, but when we decided to change the wheels for a larger set, even bigger problems we raised. We were not able to find stable wheels, and so we made them out of cardboard and paper cups. After trying the wheels out a few times, the car fell apart, and then we really needed to find more stable wheels that would not go lopsided while in motion. After finally finding 2 CDs as back wheels, we felt that we were prepared again to go forward in the competition once they had a secure support system of duck tape and cardboard sides.
c. Seeing that we have yet to finish the car, in the future I would start out my making sure that my mousetrap had very stable wheels and a larger basis for the car that uses more than just the trap in order to provide force and increase the work. Knowing what I know now, I would have also immediately increased the lever arm to hope that it would help propel the car more. Although the project was at times frustrating and challenging, it was fun way to incorporate everything that we have learned this year into a project!
No comments:
Post a Comment