Did the experiment, now more confused

In summary, The conversation revolves around the interpretation of data from an accelerometer when thrown in the air. The issue arises when trying to integrate the acceleration curve to find velocity, as the device was not completely stationary at the time. The concept of relative motion and the need to subtract the relative acceleration from the measurement is discussed. The conversation also touches on the limitations of integrating over sampled data and the impact of error margins. Overall, the conversation seeks to understand the best method for interpreting and calculating motion data from an accelerometer.
  • #1
houlahound
908
223
some time ago I posted a question re acceleration data. I bought an accelerometer and logged some data.

when stationary the accelerometer (can mention the brand if that is not spamming) read 1g, when thrown in the air got what was expected with 0g ie weightless when the accelerometer switched from upward motion to downward motion due to gravity as expected.the problem is this when the accelerometer was stationary ie velocity = 0 you can integrate the acceleration curve as a function of time and you clearly get a non zero value because acc = 1g for this time.

the integral gives the acceleration in theory but the data suggests the device had a non zero motion.

how do I rationalise this??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
houlahound said:
but the data suggests the device had a non zero motion.
It had non zero motion, relative to a free falling frame. If you want another frame, you have to subtract their relative acceleration from the measurement.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes houlahound
  • #3
if you were just given the data and did not know how it was obtained like I do and asked to calculate the velocity the only option would be to integrate wrt time and get a false description of the motion would you not??

but yah I can see how subtracting 1g would fix the interpretation and calculation but would also displace the free fall bit ie 0g in original frame to -1g which again leads to a nonsense?
 
  • #4
houlahound said:
-1g which again leads to a nonsense?
Why is that nonsense?
 
  • Like
Likes houlahound
  • #5
because I should get velocity = 0 at the peak which is now -1g which on integration will not be 0 it non-zero.

altho the integral is now zero at the place where the device was actually stationary.

will collect some data again and try post it, trying to describe graphs and integrals in text form is just distracting.
 
  • #6
houlahound said:
because I should get velocity = 0 at the peak which is now -1g which on integration will not be 0 it non-zero.
From which time point on did you integrate it?
 
  • #7
houlahound said:
because I should get velocity = 0 at the peak which is now -1g which on integration will not be 0 it non-zero.

Integrating the acceleration equation tells you nothing about the velocity expect how it is changing over time.

If F(t) = A, where A is a constant representing constant acceleration, then integrating gives you F(t) = At + C, where C is the velocity at t=0. But, C must either be provided to you, or you have to find it out some other way, if possible. Without having the value for C, you cannot say what the velocity of an object is, you can only say that it is changing according to the equation

If you throw your accelerometer into the air at an initial velocity of 10 m/s, then its velocity changes according to the equation: V = 10 - 9.81t. Setting V equal to zero gives: 0 = 10-9.81t. Solving for t: -10 = -9.91t, or t = 1.02. So the velocity after 1.02 seconds in the air is zero m/s.

If you were to start with the acceleration equation A = -9.81, then integrating with respect to time gives you V = C - 9.98t. As I said before, if you don't know C you cannot find when the velocity is zero because you don't know the initial velocity. But if I give you C = 10 m/s, then the equation becomes identical to the one before and everything works fine.
.
 
  • Like
Likes houlahound
  • #8
can't really do this textually, but why should it matter vel = ∫(accel)dv for any time.
 
  • #9
can't edit, my last reply was to A.T.
 
  • #10
Isn't it V = ∫ A dt, not dv?
 
  • Like
Likes houlahound
  • #11
Drakkith, that moved a few gears in my head, will try apply that to the data, I think I am heading to a resolution with that post.

thanks for replies, going to think about it all.
 
  • #12
Drakkith said:
Isn't it V = ∫ A dt, not dv?
Right, and only if you start the integration at V = 0. That's why I asked.
 
  • #13
Drakkith said:
Isn't it V = ∫ A dt, not dv?
indeed, my bad.

thanks for the correction.
 
  • #14
the constant of integration does not seem to come into it when doing a numerical integration from a graph, not using mathematical functions to integrate where there would be a "C". doing it dirty straight off the area under a curve.
 
  • #15
houlahound said:
the constant of integration does not seem to come into it when doing a numerical integration from a graph,
These methods, applied to acceleration, will give you the change in velocity during the integrated period. You need the initial velocity to compute the actual velocity and displacement.
 
  • #16
I figured I'd mention this, but integrating over sampled data will increase your error margin over time. That's why autonomous robots can only go so far by integrating over the acceleration/velocity data before they need to resort to absolute position measurements again.
 
  • #17
rumborak said:
I figured I'd mention this, but integrating over sampled data will increase your error margin over time.
Throwing the acceleromter up is a short period of time. The biggest error will likely come from the uncontrolled orientation of the accelerometer, which makes it difficult to interpret the measured acceleration given in a local coordinate system. Unless it has gyroscopes too, to track the orientation.
 
  • #18
Well, "short" is all a question of sampling rate and inherent noise in the measurement. If you sample a 1MHz, one second is an eternity. Keep in mind that by integrating (i.e. adding) over noisy values, you are convolving the noise Gaussians iteratively, which corresponds to adding the variances together. So, if you integrate over 100 values, your error variance has grown by a factor of 100.
 
  • #19
houlahound said:
the constant of integration does not seem to come into it when doing a numerical integration from a graph, not using mathematical functions to integrate where there would be a "C". doing it dirty straight off the area under a curve.

Of course. That's why I said it needs to be supplied to you or measured. You cannot integrate to find it. Have you taken a calculus class or calculus based physics class yet?
 

FAQ: Did the experiment, now more confused

1. What do I do if my experiment results are not what I expected?

It is common for experiment results to not match our initial predictions. This could be due to a number of factors, such as errors in the experimental setup or unexpected variables. It is important to carefully analyze the data and consider any potential sources of error before drawing conclusions.

2. How can I make sense of conflicting results from my experiment?

Conflicting results can be frustrating, but they often provide valuable information. It is important to carefully examine the data and consider all possible explanations for the discrepancies. It may also be helpful to repeat the experiment or seek input from other scientists.

3. I followed all the steps of the experiment, but the results are still confusing. What could be the problem?

There could be several reasons for confusing results, such as errors in the experimental design or unexpected variables. It is important to carefully review all steps of the experiment and consider any potential sources of error. If necessary, consult with other scientists for their input.

4. How can I improve the clarity of my experiment results?

To improve the clarity of your experiment results, it is important to have a well-designed and controlled experiment. This includes clearly defining the research question, using appropriate measurement techniques, and minimizing potential sources of error. It is also important to accurately record and analyze the data.

5. What should I do if my experiment results do not support my hypothesis?

If your experiment results do not support your hypothesis, it is important to carefully analyze the data and consider any potential sources of error. It may also be helpful to repeat the experiment or seek input from other scientists. Additionally, it is important to remember that unexpected results can lead to new and valuable discoveries in science.

Back
Top