Why did our conservation of momentum experiment have unexpected results?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around an experiment on conservation of momentum involving marbles rolling down a ramp and colliding. While the results were consistent in four out of five trials, one trial showed an unexpected increase in momentum, raising questions about the validity of the conservation principle. Participants speculated on possible human errors or miscalculations, suggesting that variations in marble weights could also affect outcomes. Despite thorough checks for friction and initial momentum vectors, the anomaly remained unexplained. The conversation highlights the complexities of experimental physics and the importance of accurate measurements.
_X3R0_
I was doing a lab one day in school and me and my teacher noticed something this isn't homework. We were wondering about conservation of momentum in the lab. The way it was done was we attached a small little ramp on the table. On the ramp we put a marble and let it slide down the ramp and onto the floor. We recorded this distance quite accuratly. Now then we put a second marble at the bottom of the ramp and so we let it hit the marble at an angle so that they would fly off in vectors and have both x and y components. Now we did this about 5 times. Out of the 5 times it worked out the way it should have the two vectors were added together and we got the same amount of momentum give or take a slight bit due to friction and air resistance. Now the 1 out of the 5 time that we did it we noticed that the momentum actually increased. Obviously we found this to be weird and it was to much for it to be human error. We did it agian same procedure same results 4 out of 5 worked but that one did the same thing. Now my question is its almost as if momentum was created somehow but that doesn't go wiht the rule of conservation of momentum. Now how could this happen. (and yes we checked the friction and the original momentum vector to make sure nothing happened and all that jazz.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If what you say is true...very interesting. But chances are you made a miscalculation somewhere, but i could be wrong...who knows? i don't. i wasn't there. Sorry can't help you here.
 
Last edited:
... possibly different weights and you didn't know?

Large errors are usually almost exclusively the realm of human errors too :P
 
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