The Density Dilemma

Energy generation methods having an existential crisis! Nuclear's over here flexing its incredible energy density by using water to cool superheated rocks, while fossil fuels are basically saying "let's just set stuff on fire like cavemen." Geothermal's tapping into Earth's core heat like it's free real estate, and then there's hydroelectric having a complete meltdown realizing everyone else is just finding complicated ways to boil water. The kid's reaction is PERFECT - that moment when you realize most electricity generation is just fancy ways to spin turbines with steam. Mind = blown! 🤯

The classic engineering student evolution! First year you're scoffing at simple projectile motion problems thinking "I'm too good for computers." Fast forward to final year and you're on your knees begging Simulink to cooperate while staring at control system diagrams that look like someone sneezed circuit symbols onto paper. Nothing humbles an engineering student faster than differential equations and transfer functions. The confidence-to-complexity curve is basically free fall with no parachute!

A gentleman in formal Victorian attire doing a plank position. Get it? He's planck -ing. Max Planck, father of quantum theory, holding his position as steadfastly as his constant holds its value in physics. The only time a physicist maintains a stable state without needing an observer.

The eternal quest for innovation strikes again! While we've mastered illuminating darkness with flashlights, some genius is contemplating the opposite—a device that projects darkness. Technically, this "reverse flashlight" would violate basic principles of light physics since darkness isn't a particle or wave you can emit—it's literally the absence of photons. But wouldn't it be delightfully chaotic to point this theoretical void-beam at someone and watch their confusion as a perfect circle of nothingness engulfs their face? The universe might object, but the pranking possibilities would be worth challenging the laws of physics.

Technically correct is the best kind of correct! The first skydive without a parachute is just gravity doing its thing. The second skydive? Well, that requires some serious planning ahead... and a functional circulatory system! It's basically Newton's lesser-known Fourth Law: "What goes splat cannot go splat again without significant medical intervention." Physics and biology teaming up for the ultimate dark humor!

Content V rigght the area of your graph where the cart was moving at a constant velocity on the flat pat of the graph which should have a constant negative slope. This is where the cart was not accelerating. 11 12. 13. 14. Use the cursor, tap and release where it begins, then drag to where the run ends and again tap and re You should now have the area highlighted where the cart was moving at a constant velocity. Press menu > 2: Data - 5: Strike Data - 2: Outside Selected Region verify that vou have selected the portion of vour eraph that shows the can mo vita a consrant veocin° n should be a line rising from left to right. If vou need to reselect do that now 15. 16. Press menu -> 4: Analyze -> 6: Curve Fit -> 1: Linear in the window that pops up record the slope (m) value into Table 2, this is the measured velocity. Ignore the slopes negative sign. The sensor measures obiects moving toward it as going in a negative direction. 17. Repeat steps the previous steps for vour other trials 18. Table 2 save your work on the calculator; press doc › 1: File -> 4: Save Run Height Measured v (m/S) 19. Submit your work; press doc -> 1: File -> 6: Send (m) Observations 0.100 20. Did the cart's velocity decrease when it was released from the lower 1.88 marks? It so, why do you think this may have happened? 2 0.075 ,953 21. acce era Use your measured (Table 2) and theoretical (Table 1) values to compute the percent % difference measured. theoretical k 100 ditterence for each run rhonrorical 0.050 4 0.025 .830 .603 Run 2 з 4 Height Measured v (m) (m/s) Table 3 Theoretical v (m/s) Percent Difference 0.100 1.188 ,245 984% 0.075 953 1.187 412% 0.050 830.125 5649 0.025 603.066 99581 Calculations: table 1 22. Were you successful in predicting the velocity of the car at the bottom of the ramp? NO. Absslutely Use the mass of the cart and g = 9.8 m/s? to theoretical gravitational potential enerov (C the 10 cm (0.10 m) height. Use the measur cart for the 10 cm heicht (Run #1\ to calcu energy (KE) of the cart. Record this inforn Calculations: 25. How does the gravitationa potential er 26. Based on vour results. did all of the in 27. If there is a difterence between the caused the ditterence: Synthesize 28. What was the independent varia 29. What did you measure? 30. what was the result when vou Error Analysis 31 What were the sources of err Conclusions 32. Did the initial height of the 33. Do your results support yc Case v2 Case