Lab issue - Please check my projectile launcher calculations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculations and experimental results related to a projectile launcher used in a lab setting. Participants are examining the discrepancies between predicted and actual heights achieved by the projectile, exploring various factors that may affect the outcomes, including energy transfer efficiency and assumptions made during the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculated the spring constant and used it to determine the kinetic energy of the projectile, leading to a predicted height that was significantly higher than the measured height.
  • Another participant questioned whether the spring was fully extended and if the mass of the launcher plug was considered in the calculations.
  • Some participants discussed the assumption that all energy from the spring is converted to gravitational potential energy, raising questions about the constancy of force during the projectile's motion.
  • A participant noted that the actual height achieved was less than predicted and suggested that the mass of the plug could account for some of the discrepancy.
  • Concerns were raised about other factors that could affect the results, such as air resistance, friction, and the influence of the magnet used to hold the projectile in place.
  • One participant reflected on the efficiency of energy conversion in the launcher, suggesting that it may not be effectively converting potential spring energy into kinetic energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reasons for the discrepancies in height measurements. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the factors affecting the projectile's performance, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various assumptions and factors that may not have been fully accounted for in the calculations, such as the mass of the launcher plug, air resistance, and the efficiency of energy transfer. These limitations contribute to the uncertainty in the results discussed.

ranger275
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Lab issue -- Please check my projectile launcher calculations

I am making a lab for a class I teach and my results aren't working out and I need another pair of eyes to see if my method is wrong (I apologize if this should go in homework, but it isn't a homework question so I thought it should go here).

I have a projectile launcher. I used a force probe to find it took 7.5 N to push the launcher plug 3.5 cm or 0.035 m which gives me a spring constant of k=7.5/0.035=214. Using W=1/2kx^2 I found the KE of the projectile leaving the launcher to be KE=W=1/2(214)(0.035)^2=0.131 j. Setting KE=U I found the maximum height from 0.131=mgh where the projectile is 17 g or 0.017 kg so h=0.131/((0.017)(9.8))=0.79. When I fired the projectile my height was off by almost a factor of 2 so I think I am missing a factor of 2 somewhere. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is the spring fully extended in the launcher? You said the launcher has a "plug" on it - did you consider its mass? I don't see anything wrong in your calc.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Since you have assumed that all the energy in the spring goes to height (gpe), and the energy in the spring is the work done to compress it, then Fd=mgh right? (where h is measured from the position of the projectile on the compressed spring ... did you apply a constant force all the way?)

h=(7.5x0.035)/(9.8x0.017)=1.5756m ... almost twice your calculation.
i.e. the result for a constant force applied the entire movement.

... Did your launcher fire 2x higher than calculated, or half as high?

Check that the spring obeys hooks law?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
I had not thought of the mass of the plug. My actual height was 0.43 so it was a little more than half of my predicted height. The plug would have to have a mass of 0.173 kg to make that much difference (U(stored in spring)-U(gravity at max height from launcher)=U(gravity change in launcher), 1/2(214)(0.035)^2- (0.017)(9.8)(0.43)=M(9.8)(0.035). The entire launcher only weighs 0.192 kg so I don't think the magnetic plug is anywhere near that. The force can't be constant because the spring force increases as you push the projectile in. I calculated k for x=0.068 and got 208 so it appears to follow hookes law.

I just had a thought. The launcher is magnetized to keep the ball from falling out. Could that be what is slowing the ball down? Thanks for the responses!
 
OK - so,
  • for a spring that obeys hooks law (did you check)
  • firing the projectile directly upwards
  • neglecting -
    • air resistance
    • mass of the plug
    • rotation of the projectile (was it a ball?)
    • friction in the launcher
    • pull from the magnet
    • recoil of the launcher

##\frac{1}{2}Fd = mgh \Rightarrow h=79\text{cm}##​

You measured: ##h=43\text{cm}##

Your rig sounds like a commercial one I've used before - it has an aluminium tube mounted on a protractor+plumb-line thing that you can bolt to a bench. The magnet is very weak so has almost no effect compared to other factors. iirc recoil of the launcher and air resistance were the biggest effects and we saw some effect from the rotation of the ball we used as a projectile.

The launcher had several settings that could be compared.
You can also compare time-of-flight for firing horizontally with just dropping the projectile from the same height.
(We used a pressure plate and a photogate.)
Also compare predicted range with actual range for horizontal firing - iirc: air resistance was not significant for the vertical movement but was for the horizontal ... higher speeds. It was also significant for firing vertically upwards - but I don't remember how significant it was.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thanks for all of the help. I think the launcher just doesn't covert the potential spring energy into kinetic energy very efficiently. Thanks again, especially Simon.
 
How did you determine that?
Did you account for the assumption you made in the test runs?
Could you test it by attempting to make the launcher more efficient.

Oh well - so long as you are happy with the results.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
20K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K