There is evidence to suggest the motion made the students is average acceleration ax = 0.35 m/s^2
Techniques used to determine the acceleration
- use an identifiable motionless object as reference, can reduce some the errors from a un steady camera view point.
- data analysis parabola fit to determine acceleration ax.
Model A
 |
| worksheet/lesson by: chan him nok video by : RV_Rendao_jixuan_jingyan model and reference by lookang Download Link1 Link2 |
 |
| analysis suggests acceleration average ax = 0.38 m/s^2 instead of 0.5 assigned worksheet/lesson by: chan him nok video by : RV_Rendao_jixuan_jingyan model and reference by lookang Download Link1 Link2 |
Model B 2 parts motion
 |
| model B is suggested to better reflect the data worksheet/lesson by: chan him nok video by : RV_Rendao_jixuan_jingyan model and reference by lookang Download Link1 Link2 |
 |
| assume ax = 0.5, a t = 0 to 1.767 is selected to result in parabola fit parameter A = -0.247 so that ax = 0.49 close to 0.5 m/s^2 worksheet/lesson by: chan him nok video by : RV_Rendao_jixuan_jingyan model and reference by lookang Download Link1 Link2 |
 |
| the rest of the data is fitted worksheet/lesson by: chan him nok video by : RV_Rendao_jixuan_jingyan model and reference by lookang Download Link1 Link2 |
 |
| model B is built based on the evidences of video analysis as a means for triangulate meaning of the analysis and the closeness of the fit is an indication of the correctness of model B to match real data. worksheet/lesson by: chan him nok video by : RV_Rendao_jixuan_jingyan model and reference by lookang Download Link1 Link2 |
My speculation
you may have noticed the motion A and B do not match the new moving reference data for mass A.
after i set a new track mass B as the new reference frame.
the models do not follow this new mass B as new reference frame, but instead continues to be based on the original fixed reference.
this is a problem for me unless i can call the x position of the new mass B into the model building interface, so that the model built can more closely matches that of the analysis data for mass A.
chance to suggest a work around or is it a "bug" in Tracker 4.88 and below?
hope the Tracker is improved based on this feedback!
Speculation 2
is it possible that there is a bug during exporting?
i will provide the raw files for your experimenting and repeating the process.
Raw files
- video with blank spaces , results in failure to encode as reported by Tracker at 99% completion. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sko97i2lxlv90y2/Video%20%288%29.MOV?dl=0
- good video with no blank spaces in file name , result in trz file sucess! https://www.dropbox.com/s/35bqmmhiidcq3s8/Video8.MOV?dl=0
- trk file https://www.dropbox.com/s/elujrmtkhee8pj4/RV_Rendao_jixuan_jingyan.trk?dl=0
End goal
- exported file https://www.dropbox.com/s/59e75ng3tbdyv5h/RVhimnokkinematics05.trz?dl=0 has a new mp4 but is not trim i believe, that results in the model that no longer matches the Mass A.
Current work around
to overcome this, i need to start the clip analysis back to frame 14.
thank you for creating Tracker, my favorite choice tool for Physics education!
No comments:
Post a Comment