Attempting to graph momentum help

  • Thread starter Thread starter Owatch
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Graph Momentum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on graphing momentum as a linear slope using the formula p = mv, where momentum (p) is derived from mass (m) and velocity (v). The user has collected data on velocity, mass, time, and displacement from experiments involving trolleys, but is struggling to represent momentum graphically with a slope. They attempted to use the equation 1/p = 1/(mv) but ended up with a horizontal line, indicating a need for a different approach. The goal is to have the graph's gradient represent momentum, and the user is seeking advice on how to achieve this representation effectively. Overall, the challenge lies in finding a way to visualize momentum in a meaningful way on a graph.
Owatch
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
What I am trying to do right now is graph momentum as a linear slope on a graph.
What I know is:

p = mv

Now, I've collected data giving me the velocity of the object, and I also have the mass. Now All I am trying to do is figure out a way to graph this.

I've tried 1/p= 1/(mv) but of course all I get is a horizontal line for a slope at 1.

What I need to do is somehow make one of these variables proportional to each other in order for me to be able to derive momentum from the graph, even having the area under the graph being = to momentum would be fine.

I'm pretty stumped. I can't think of anyway I can get a proper graph that would show me momentum. At least one with a slope.

Can anybody help me out here?

I have: velocity, time, displacement, and mass as data for this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not clear what you intend to show with your graph. The momentum is given by mv, so if you have the velocity you have the momentum.

What exactly did you measure?
 
@DocAl

I intend to show P in the graph as the gradient of the slope, or line. I know I have momentum already, I just have to represent it in a graph. Where the gradient will be P, the thing is, I can't exactly find any possible way to do it.

I measured the time it took for a trolley to cross a certain distance after being propelled with the same amount of force. (I took 5 trials). As well as the time it took for the trolley it collided into to travel the rest of the track distance.

Because I know the mass's of both trolleys, and the force propelling the first is always constant. I can derive V from S/t and then use p = mv to get momentum.

So I measured the time it took for the trolley and the one it hit to cover a set distance. As well as the mass's of both trolleys, which were identical.

I repeated this in 7 different intervals. Where I added more mass to each trolley. And did the same 5 time trials.
 
Forgot to use the reply button, reply is above ^
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top