|
1997-2006 Academic Years Kinematics |
![]() |
28 October 1997: Ann Brandon [Joliet West HS]
(Formulas for Uniformly accelerated motion)
there are 4 formulas because there are 5 variables [ vf, v0, d, a, t] and each has one variable missing. End of story.
25 November 1997: Arlyn van Ek [Illiana Christian HS]
did a variation on the boat crossing the river using a sheet of
moving paper and
a powered car. The setup is based on a problem in the standard textbook
by Merrill,
concerning a "paper river". One must add velocities as vectors to
determine the direction of travel of the powered car on the moving
river. If the
car is aimed straight across, it is deflected downstream by a certain
angle by
the motion of the paper. Interestingly enough, to make the car go
straight
across, it must have a net upstream motion relative to the paper, but
it is not
correct to aim it upstream by the same angle as it went downstream when
going
straight across in the rest frame of the paper.
20 January 1998 Carol Zimmerman Lane Tech High School
She brought in a cartoon of FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. A guy is
standing on
an overpass 30 meters high. He has to drop a package into the
truck as it
goes under the overpass. The truck is 100 meters away. If it
starts from
a velocity of 0 and accelerates at a rate of 4.9 meters per
second-squared. How many seconds should he wait, after the truck
starts, to
drop the package?
She showed the math involved and the truck took 6.4 seconds to get to the bridge, and the rock took 2.5 seconds to fall, thus the guy should wait for about 3.9 seconds before dropping the package, and breaking the truck window [or worse].
28 September 1999: Bill Blunk (Joliet Central HS)
showed us an effective way to use paradigms to teach physics. As an
example,
using the distance (d) an object travels in free fall under
gravitational
acceleration (g) for a time (t), we know that d = gt2/2.
Let's
suppose that g = 10, t = 2 and d = 20. Bill challenges his
students: If
you can give me the proper units for g, t and d, I'll give you a ten!
When a
student gets a correct answer, he gives them ten cents! Neat!
26 October 1999: Ann Brandon (Joliet West HS)
(handout) did Physics Off the Cliff (Conceptual Physics) with us. How
long would
it take a steel ball bearing (slingshot amenities, K-Mart) to fall from
the top
of a table 0.79 m high and strike the floor? Using h = gt2/2,
knowing
h and g, one calculates t = 0.40 s. We rolled the ball off the end of a
horizontal table, observing that it took 1.55 s to roll 1.0 m off the
end, so it
had an initial horizontal velocity of 1.0 m/1.55 s = 0.63 m/s. Moving
horizontally with that velocity while falling for 0.40 s to the floor,
it would
strike the floor at (0.63 m/s)(0.40s) = 0.25m from below the table
edge. On
target, observed! A beautiful way to show the independence of
horizontal and
vertical motion! For edification concerning the Cartoon Laws
of Physics,
see the website http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/cs8113f_97_spring/cartoon.html.
26 September 2000 Marilynn Stone (Lane Tech HS)
made an inclined plane by placing a book on the table and leaning a
grooved
plastic (about 1 ft) ruler against it - using tape to fasten
its lower
end to the table. She placed a steel ball (a little over 1 cm diameter)
in the
groove at the top end of the ruler and released it. It rolled down the
groove,
onto the table, traveled horizontally across the table, rolled off the
edge, and
fell to the floor. Marilynn took the horizontal distance from
the bottom
of the ruler to the edge of the table to be 0.5 m. By measuring
the time
it took the ball to roll off the edge of the table (0.54 s) we
could
calculate the horizontal speed:
vx = d/t = (0.5 m)/(0.54 s) = 0.93 m/s.
The height (y) of the table was measured to be 0.92 m,
and y
= gt2/2. So putting in values for y and g = 9.8 m/s2,
we found the time of fall to be t = 0.43 s. When the ball fell
off the
table and was accelerated downward by gravity, it continued to move
with the
same horizontal speed as it fell, so it moved a distance
"Students are always surprised to see that it actually works, as predicted by the physics,"
Marilynn told us. Great!
10 October 2000 Betty Roombos (Lane Tech HS)
explained how she shows her
students to do vector problems. We are given two displacement vectors:
25 September 2001 Fred Farnell (Lane Tech HS,
Physics) Follow The Bouncing Ball
Fred led us through an exercise that addresses accuracy, error, and
variation in
the process of measurement. The motivation for his presentation
was his
past experience. As an example, one group would measure a density
of a
given material to be 0.60 g/cm3, whereas another
group would
measure it to be 0.62 g/cm3. Are these
measurements different,
or are they really equivalent? How do we learn to
appreciate
the issue?
Our exercise involved dropping a ball on the floor or table from a height of 1 meter, and measuring the time between the first bounce and the sixth bounce. A series of stop watches were passed out, and we recorded these measurements, obtained by watching the bounces, hearing them without seeing them, and seeing them without hearing them:
| Ball Dropped on Floor Bounces Seen and Heard Times in Seconds |
Ball Dropped on Floor Bounces Heard; Not Seen Times in Seconds |
Ball Dropped on Table Bounces Seen; Not Heard Times in Seconds |
Ball Dropped on Floor Move Hand with Bounces Times in Seconds |
| 3.05 | 3.28 | 3.76 | 3.75 |
| 3.44 | 3.73 | 3.80 | 3.75 |
| 3.72 | 3.75 | 3.82 | 3.78, 3.78 |
| 3.76 | 3.78 | 3.97 | 3.79, 3.79 |
| 3.80 | 3.83 | 4.13 | 3.81 |
| 3.81 | 3.90 | 4.13 | 3.87 |
| 3.85 | 4.10 | 4.31 | 3.87 |
| 3.88 | *miss* | *miss* | 3.91 |
| 4.05 | *miss* | *miss* | 3.99 |
| Median: 3.80 | Median: 3.78 | Median: 3.97 | Median: 3.79 |
The last set of data, which show less variation than the others, were taken in a fashion advocated by Earl Zwicker (IIT). Namely, we moved the hand that held the stopwatch up and down in synchronization with the motion of the ball, and punched the buttons on the watch when our hands were at the right place. He suggested that this technique leads to a reduction of effects of our reaction time. It is not reasonable to conclude from the data that these numbers are really different in the four cases of interest, although more precise measurements might indicate that the ball bounced differently on the table versus the floor.
11 December 2001: John Bozovsky (Bowen HS, Physics): Rough
Rider
John showed us the Rough Rider Car (available at
Walgreens, WALMART, etc),
as well as another toy car. He
used these vehicles so that we could make a qualitative and visual
comparison of uniform
motion (motion with constant speed v) and uniformly accelerated
motion
from rest.
| Type of Motion | distance d versus time t |
| Uniform | d = v t |
| Uniformly Accelerated from rest | d = 1/2 a t2 |
He set up these two motions by having somebody push one car across the table, and he released the other car down slightly inclined plane just when the two cars were at the same horizontal position, using his carefully calibrated manual reflexes acquired by years of practice as a physics teacher. They started at the same place, and car moving with constant speed went ahead at first, but the uniformly accelerated car caught up with it at some distance D and time T, both of which were measured. At this time the cars were at the same position, so that
D = v T = 1/2 a T2
Thus, we may calculate the velocity v = D / T and the acceleration a = 2 D / T2 = 2 v2 / D. He drew the graph of d versus t, as a visual presentation of the motion of the two cars, showing where the accelerated car caught up car going with constant speed. Nice! Keep shopping for more good toy cars, John!
22 October 2002: Ann Brandon [Joliet West,
Physics] Projectile Motion
Ann brought in Pasco Projectile Launcher Projectile Mini-Launcher ME-6825,
which shoots small ball bearings. [The more powerful model , ME-6800,
which shoots plastic balls, is also available; for details see the Pasco
Website
http://store.pasco.com/.] The
Mini-Launcher has three settings, and we shot the balls with the most
energetic
setting. First she launched the projectile horizontally at a
height of
94.5 cm from the floor, and we measured the distance it traveled before
striking
the floor to be 2.36 meters. Since the ball took a time
Ö (2 h/g) = Ö
(2)(.945)/(.98) = 0.43 seconds to hit the ground, it left the
muzzle at a speed of
5.4 m/sec. She then launched the ball at an angle of 60º
to the horizontal, and measured its horizontal distance of travel back
to the launch table,
obtaining the range R = 2.48 meters. Ann
compared this with
the range formula R = v02 sin 2 q
/g = 2.50 m.
Ann also mentioned the following items:
Alder delivers a triple whammy with this elegant history of technology, acute cultural chronicle and riveting intellectual adventure built around Delambre's and Mechain's famed meridian expedition of 1792-1799 to calculate the length of the meter. Disclosing for the first time details from the astronomers' personal correspondences (and supplementing his research with a bicycle tour of their route), Alder reveals how the exacting Mechain made a mistake in his calculations, which he covered up, and which tortured him until his death. Mechain, remarkably scrupulous even in his doctoring of the data, was driven in part by his conviction that the quest for precision and a universal measure would disclose the ordered world of 18th-century natural philosophy, not the eccentric, misshapen world the numbers suggested. Indeed, Alder has placed Delambre and Mechain squarely in the larger context of the Enlightenment's quest for perfection in nature and its startling discovery of a world "too irregular to serve as its own measure." Particularly fascinating is his treatment of the politics of 18th-century measurement, notably the challenge the savants of the period faced in imposing a standard of weights and measures in the complicated post-ancien regime climate. Alder convincingly argues that science and self-knowledge are matters of inference, and by extension prone to error. Delambre, a Skeptical Stoic, was the more pragmatic and, perhaps, the more modern of the two astronomers, settling as he did for honesty in error where precision was out of reach. Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Good stuff, Ann!
10 December 2002: Karlene Joseph [Lane Tech HS, Physics]
Synthesizing
Planar Motion with x- and y- coordinates
Karlene used three white board sheets (about 40 cm ´ 60
cm)
to generate motion in the plane as a superposition of independent
motions in the
x- and y-directions. The bottom (first) white board
was held fixed on the table,
the middle (second) white board (lying flat on the first board) was
moved along the long direction of the table
to represent x, and the top (third) white board (lying flat on
the second
board) was moved perpendicular to the long direction to represent y-motion.
A board marker,
which was held at the intersection line of the second and third boards
as they
moved, traced out the "trajectory" on the bottom board. If the
(middle) second and (top) third boards were moved at constant speed,
the marker
traced out the trajectory, and produced a straight line in a
"slanted"
direction on the bottom board. If the second board (x-motion)
was moved
with constant speed, while the third board (y-motion) went from
fast to
slow (deceleration),
a downward arc of roughly parabolic shape was obtained.
In addition, if the
second board (x-motion) again was moved at constant speed,
whereas the third
board (y-motion) went from slow to fast, and upward arc of rough
parabolic shape
was obtained. Finally, if the second board (x-motion) went
with constant
speed, but the third board (y-motion) went from fast to slow to
"stop", and then from slow to fast in the opposite direction, a full
arc of roughly parabolic shape was obtained. Great!
Having shown the independent
motions in the x- and y-directions in an direct, visual,
interactive fashion,
Karlene then wrote the equations describing the general motions
being
considered:
It was suggested that a parabola be drawn first on the first white
board, and
the second board be moved at a constant rate, as always. Then,
the person
moving the third board (y-direction) would see what has to be
done in
order for the marker to trace the parabola; i.e. y-acceleration.
Driving is
believing, or something like that! An exciting presentation of
old
concepts in new packages, Karlene!
11 February 2003:
Chris Etapa [Gunsaulus Academy] Forces
and Motion
/ Cars and Hovercrafts
Chris presented an activity described on the Look ·
Learn and Do
Publications website: http://www.looklearnanddo.com.
Chris successfully used the lesson contained there in her eighth
grade
class. First, Chris reviewed the meanings of the terms distance,
velocity, and
acceleration. Using boxes equipped with
primitive, home-made wheels, the class was divided into groups of 4,
and each
group designed and built a car. Next, the students tested
their
cars by giving them a push and measuring the distance D
traveled over a given
time interval T. They then calculated the velocity V = D / T.
This
completed the activities described on that webpage.
Next, her students made hovercrafts from one liter water bottles and balloons --- an activity based upon previous SMILE miniteach presentations [ph8901.html; pl95m7.html]. We did a variation of this activity during today's class.
After dividing into groups of 3-4 participants, we stood the bottle vertically on its base, and cut around the top portion of the bottle at its shoulder, forming an inverted cup-like structure. We stretched the lip of the balloon over opening of the bottle, with the cap removed, and blew into the opening at the shoulder, inflating the balloon. When the balloon was inflated we held the air in it by pinching it just above the cup. We set the apparatus upright on the table, with the shoulder rim resting on the flat surface, and released the pinch. The air rushed out of the balloon, into the inverted bottle-cup, and out at the shoulder opening or rim, and the hovercraft rose slightly off the table. In fact, the craft began to move slightly across the table --- presumably because of residual asymmetries. Ken Schug modified the apparatus by taking the plastic bottle cap, punched a small hole in its center, and then put it on the bottle-cup. When the balloon was re-attached, re-inflated, and released the outflow of air into the room was reduced, and the motion of the bottle was more stable. This modification was suggested by Larry Alofs [Kenwood HS, physics], a visitor from the Math-Physics SMILE program.
Questions to ask:
25 February 2003: Michelle Gattuso [Sandburg HS, Orland Park,
Physics] Kinetic and Potential Energy /
handout
Michelle showed us a laboratory experiment that involved attaching
special
tape to a ball of mass m. The tape passed through a spark
timer, and when the
ball was released from rest, a record of its motion was made. She
used the Nakamura Electronic Spark Timer, which
is listed at item P1-180 for $112 in a recent Arbor
Scientific Catalog;
see their website, http://www.arborsci.com.
The timer operates at two settings, 60 Hz and 10 Hz.
According to Arlyn
van Ek, there seemed to be considerably less friction than
with the older timers containing
carbon paper. When the ball is released from rest at an initial height H,
its velocity v at height h should satisfy the
condition of conservation of
mechanical energy:
You dropped the ball, but didn't drop the ball, Michelle! Great job!
11 March 2003: Betty Roombos [Gordon Tech HS, Physics] and
Karlene Joseph [Lane Tech HS, Physics] Skating
Around
the Issue
Betty and Karlene showed us how a student could gain insight
as to how an object
moves when dropped out of an airplane. We watched .Karlene skate
in
line across the
room holding a soccer ball, which she threw into the air and then
caught. Karlene
threw the ball straight up, and caught it as it came straight down, as
viewed
from her reference frame. However, in our frame we saw the ball
travel up and down
along an inverted parabolic arc. Karlene then dropped
the ball from
above her head, while rolling across the room at roughly constant
speed.
We saw the ball fall in a parabolic arc. Karlene next tried a
bombing
run, in which she held the ball high and then dropped it while moving
in order to hit a fixed
target on the floor. On the third try she gauged the proper
release point and hit the
target, a styrofoam™ cup -- which shattered -- which won our
applause! Stupendous shooting, Karlene!
Next Betty pulled Karlene across the room with a piece of bungee cord that she kept stretched by a calibrated amount, thereby applying a constant force to Karlene. Betty had to move faster and faster to maintain this state of constant force, which produced a constant acceleration. Betty suggested other experiments with (a) two bungee cords to double the force, and/or (b) pulling two kids to double the mass. Also, Betty mentioned that the amount of frictional drag actually could be measured.
What great ways for students to gain insights into Newton's Laws. Pretty stuff, Betty and Karlene!
22 April 2003:
Christine Scott [Beethoven School] and Lilla Green [Hartigan
School,
retired] Soup
Chris and Lilla began by leading us through a free expression
session about
our ideas and concepts relating to soup. Then, they broke the 'orrible
news: we weren't going to get to eat some soup, but to
roll soup cans down inclines! Chris and Lilla produced
several
different cans of soup [broth, cream, chunky] and set up plywood ramps [about
4
feet long --- 1.2 meters, and 12 inches wide --- 30 cm].
These ramps
were supported on a horizontal surface with a short stack of books at
one
end. Each regular group rolled each can down the ramp
three times, and measured
how long it took-- starting from rest -- to travel the length of the
board. Results
(averages of the three trials) were then compared, the broth can moving
fastest for
all three groups [Note: If
more books had been put under the elevated end of the ramp, the soup
cans would
have rolled
more quickly.]
A control group was first given a long plastic jar that was about 1/3 filled with powdered cleaner --- they found that it would roll for only a short distance -- after which it stopped, requiring a strong push to roll further. That control group next took a jar filled with a liquid, which rolled easily without additional pushing. They took a little scouring powder from a nearly empty can, and rubbed it on the jar to make suds. The jar rolled faster as a consequence. Finally, the control group rolled the empty open scouring powder can down the plane, and it wasn't particularly fast.
Various contributing factors were discussed --- diameters of the cans, masses of the cans, viscosity [flowing ability] of the contents of the can, and friction of the cans on the board. The discussion revealed that the nature of the contents in a sealed can were very important, although friction did determine whether the can would or would not roll without slipping down the incline.
Next they took two long Inertia Rods (a red one and a blue one), which were shown to be of equal weight by taping them to each end of a meter stick, and then finding that the stick balanced when supported at the middle --- the 50 cm mark. Two hapless volunteers were given the task of holding one of the rods in the middle, and then of rotating the rod back-and-forth in a plane perpendicular to their outstretched arms; i.e. wiggling the rod in a torsional mode. The blue rod was decidedly more difficult to wiggle, according to the volunteer who received it. We felt that the weight inside the blue rod was more unevenly distributed --- with more mass closer to the ends of the rod, than for the red rod. Wow -- wee!
We concluded that the broth can rolled fastest because, like the red bar, its mass was uniformly distributed. In the chunky soup can there presumably were chunks near the perimeter of the inside of the can, like the blue bar, which slowed its rolling. Is that correct, or are there other reasons as well?
True or False: What's soup for the goose is soup for the
gander!
You had quite a roll today. Thanks, Chris and Lilla!
28 September 2004: Don Kanner [Lane Tech HS,
Physics]
A Quick Graph
Don described a quick way to get rather accurate data of a
falling
object, by dropping that object alongside a vertical meter stick, and
recording
the fall with a video camera. Using the "freeze frame"
display feature, the position of the top of the the falling object is
recorded
at a rate of 30 frames per second. You just read the data
directly
off the image, and then draw the graph. Neato! Porter
Johnson mentioned that a bucket dropped into the hand-dug well over
100
meters in depth at the Hohenzollern
Medieval Castle in Nuremberg, Germany took 5-6 seconds
to hit
the water level -- kerplunk! The Tiefer Brun
(deep well)
was essential for defending the castle during times of siege! For
details see the website
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles13/travel-125.shtml.
Thanks for sharing this, Don!
Ann Brandon and Debbie Lojkutz [Joliet West HS,
physics]
Accelerometers
Ann and Debbie first showed us the Peanut Butter Jar
Accelerometer, and demonstrated how it works. They then gave
each of us a plastic straw (with a small slit at one end), a piece of
string, a big paper clip, and an arrow drawn on a small piece of
paper. We tied one end of the string to the big paper clip, and
tied a knot at the other end. Then we pushed the knotted end of
the string through the unslit end of the straw and out through the slit
end. Then we pushed the string through the slit, so that the knot
would be caught. Next we attached the arrow to the paper clip, so
that it pointed at the straw. We had thereby constructed our very
own accelerometers, which we tested. They worked!
09 November 2004: Ann and Debbie handed out the following sheet:
Ann and Debbie also called our attention to two items in a recent catalog of Frey Scientific: https://www.schoolspecialtyonline.net/browseProducts.jsp?categoryID=0&URLID=1004. The first item, an Impact Car (#05578611, $7.75) [http://store.schoolspecialtyonline.net/OA_HTML/xxssi_ibeSearchResults.jsp?type=search&minisite=10029&query=impact+car] permits the measurement of the maximum force at impact. The second, a Large Lens Kit (#05527379, $64.55) [http://store.schoolspecialtyonline.net/OA_HTML/xxssi_ibeSearchResults.jsp?type=search&minisite=10029&query=large+lens+kit] contains several lenses with magnets on their backs, which are suitable and convenient for blackboard optics.
Thanks, Ann and Debbie!
26 April 2005: Bill Shanks [Joliet Central, physics --
retired]
Meeting of the Board + A One Watt Flashlight
Bill recently was driving North on Interstate 75 in Georgia, on a
quiet section between Macon and the metropolitan Atlanta traffic
snarl. Suddenly, he saw a large wooden board moving
through the air in front of him, coming right at him. Fortunately,
he was able to swerve to avoid major impact, receiving only a minor
dent on the right front bumper. After this moment of terror had
passed, Bill began to wonder whether he had just been lucky, or
whether there had been time to react to the situation. Aha!
Another good physics question! The board might have been
lying on the road initially, where it would be struck by a big truck
and knocked high into the air. If it rose to an approximate height
h = 3 meters above the roof of the car before Bill saw it
and it began to descend, a time t ~ 0.8 seconds would
elapse before it came down to the level of the roof:
Excellent real-life physics experience! Thanks, Bill.
Comment by Porter Johnson: By contrast, an object dropped from a viaduct above the road is even more dangerous, since you probably won't see it until somewhat after it is dropped, and at that point it is moving more quickly through the field of view.
13 December 2005:
Carl Martikean [Proviso Math and Science Academy]
Poetic
Kinematics
Carl had been discussing motion with his freshman class and asked
them to plot the motion described by the first two stanzas of Paul
Revere's Ride by J
W Longfellow: http://eserver.org/poetry/paul-revere.html.
Here is the first stanza: