physics class
Leila@
phys151_onlinelab_spring15.docxPHYS 151 Online Laboratory
Welcome to PHYS 151, and the online laboratory component! You will be completing assigned tasks worth
· 25% of your overall grade
in this set of experiences. You will use Tracker software (free for both Windows and Macintosh … and Linux if that is the way you do things).
Go to
· https://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker/
to download the software and install it. You will be able to use video from your smartphones to do experiments in this class.
There are a total of 10 documents you will prepare for this course. The first is a tutorial experiment that everyone will complete on their own and turn in by midnight Saturday of the first week of class. Then, every Saturday we will cycle through a 3-step process in your Social Homework groups. Your laboratory grade will consist of a group grade on the document you prepare and the usual Social Homework grade (which measures how much you interact with your classmates).
The lab schedule is:
At the beginning of each 3 week cycle, I will issue a “Request for Proposals” … commonly known as an “RFP” in the sciences and engineering. The RFP will specify the goal of your project, and will give some broad detail you have to meet in order to make a successful proposal. If I approve your proposal, you will be able to do you experiment in the following week … otherwise, I will assign your group an experiment that another group has successfully proposed. At the end of week 2, your group will turn in to Social Homework Showcase a completed, traditional laboratory report. In week 3, the “review” week, I will assign your group a laboratory report from another group in the class. Your group will work to replicate or refute the work that group did. You might find that some data a group reports just cannot be reproduced … that might be a symptom of the original work being copied or fabricated, which would be a serious breach of scientific ethics. Your review work will be turned in by Saturday as a follow-up to the original Showcase.
Tutorial “Tracker” Lab
Please refer to the following “YouTube” video
· https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6esbl5iV8A
for instructions on how to get data from Tracker into an Excel spreadsheet. Please complete the “data collection” for yourself, and upload to Beachboard your spreadsheet file showing your numbers, and the graph. Please mark on the graph the average value for Fx and for Fy in Newtons for the “BallTossOut.mov” file.
For a mass of 0.25 Kg, we expect the force in the x direction to be zero … is it? We also expect the force in the y-direction to be –mg, = 0.25* 9.8 m/sec^2, which is approximately -2.5 N. Is it?
Congratulations! You have used the tracker tool to take “bread-crumb” trajectory data and deduce a force from it. That is all you have to do for Week 1.
Proposal / Experiment / Review Templates
Your group will be making three experiment proposals during the term. The proposal itself is a Microsoft Word document in which you propose an experiment that addresses the question raised in the RFP.
The first Request for Proposal is as follows (to be completed the week following the tutorial exercise).
Is
a correct statement about a physical system? I need an experiment that refutes this statement (The Momentum Principle) or supports it. You can expect that RFP 2 will involve the Energy Principle, and 3 will involve the Angular Momentum Principle.
Group #: Title of Proposal
Principal Investigator: Director’s Name
Researcher: Investigator’s Name
Analysis: Executive’s Name
Quality Control 1: Skeptic 1’s Name
Quality Control 2: Skeptic 2’s Name
Abstract
We propose to fulfill the RFP by filming the motion of (…..) during (….). We will measure (….) from the motion, and will be able to conclude that (….question…) has one of two answers: yes or no.
Background
Project director is responsible for this section. The RFP is asking about some big area of physics. The Director has to write a paragraph about how this question relates to the rest of the course … this is the “why are we doing this” question.
Procedure
The Investigator is responsible for making a step by step procedure … possibly with screenshots and diagrams indicating how to do the proposed experiment. The procedure must be detailed enough so that a different group could follow it. The Investigator is responsible for collecting preliminary data showing that the experiment is possible. The quality control people attempt to follow the procedure, and verify that the steps work as intended. The preliminary data must be included in the appendix.
Preliminary Results
The Executive analyzes the preliminary data and writes a paragraph, and includes a graph showing that there is enough detail in the procedure to analyze and get an answer to the overall RFP “question”.
Conclusion
The skeptics write this paragraph, giving a frank assessment of the ease of doing the experiment, and how convincing the results are likely to be.
Appendix
The raw data (in the form of a table) containing the raw data.
Group #: Title of Experiment
Principal Investigator: Director’s Name
Researcher: Investigator’s Name
Analysis: Executive’s Name
Quality Control 1: Skeptic 1’s Name
Quality Control 2: Skeptic 2’s Name
Abstract
We have fulfilled the RFP by filming the motion of (…..) during (….). We have measured (….) from the motion, and will conclude that (….question…) has the following answer: (your answer).
Background
Project director is responsible for this section. The RFP is asking about some big area of physics. The Director has to write a paragraph about how this question relates to the rest of the course … this is the “why are we doing this” question.
Procedure
The Investigator is responsible for making a step by step procedure for how to do the proposed experiment. The procedure must be detailed enough so that a different group could follow it. The Investigator is responsible for collecting data including the filming of the process, the calibration of distances and masses. The quality control people (Skeptics) check that this has been done honestly. The data must be included in the appendix.
Results
The Executive analyzes the data and writes a paragraph, and includes a graph answering the overall RFP “question”.
Conclusion
The skeptics write this paragraph, giving a frank assessment of the quality of the experiment, and how convincing the results are.
Appendix
The raw data (in the form of a table) containing the raw data.
Group #: Review of Submission AAA
Principal Investigator: Director’s Name
Researcher: Investigator’s Name
Analysis: Executive’s Name
Quality Control 1: Skeptic 1’s Name
Quality Control 2: Skeptic 2’s Name
Abstract
We have reviewed submission AAA, and find that the work is (correct, convincing … or … flawed and misleading … or whatever you come up with. This is your overall judgment on the quality of report AAA).
Background
Director corrects or concurs with the “Background” statement in the assigned report.
Procedure
The Investigator follows the procedure as written, and collects similar data to AAA’s work.
Results
The executive analyzes your data, and decides if your independent data confirms AAA’s work, or if it refutes it. Again, a graph will be needed.
Conclusion
The skeptics write this paragraph, giving a frank assessment of the quality of the experiment, and how convincing the results are.
Appendix
The data collected is presented in a table.
