Recent Changes

Comment
Succinct presentation, however; what could be done is to expand the types of objects used to measure the shock absorption. The experiment itself is relevant, but I think to use one type of object to measure shock absoprtion bears little to no relevance to real-world situations.

Comment
This experiment certainly outdoes ours in terms of investigating the mean friction static; I am quite surprised how easy it was for you guys to find the peak rather consistent throughout i.e. the mean friction kinetic did not go over the peak, an area that we somehow found trouble with. Perhaps one could expand this experiment to include other types of footwear, but in retrospect, keeping the footwear constant makes the experiment more replicable as well as yielding more accurate data. Good presentation of data; the graph very much help the visualization.

Comment
Brilliant design in experiment; the relevance this has to the safety concerns in TAS is very high and would be much appreciated by the athletic community in the school. As a side note, it was very helpful to include the way you guys reach the calculations. What appears to be the main area of concern is the surface choice, particularly the grass. Perhaps what one could consider doing to improve the experiment is perhaps narrow it down to synthetic surfaces, as the one done by Brigham Young University; that way the replicability of the experiment is thus reached while still yielding relevant results to the TAS community.

1. Analyzing Friction
How effective are different types in producing friction on different types of surfaces in TAS?
the mean force static friction and mean force kinetic friction produced by
i. Variables
Independent - The types of shoes and surfaces
both the force static and force kinetic friction
Two different types of surfaces were used: the hallway and the tracks. Four different types of shoes were equally used on both surfaces: cleats, flats, flip flops and casual shoes.
a. Cleats
6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 for each shoe.
7. Repeat steps 1 to 6 for both surfaces.
the mean force kinetic and force static friction for each the mean force kinetic and force static friction of all
iv. Processed Data
a. Mean force static friction and force kinetic friction of shoes
Shoes
Force StaticStatic Friction (N)
Force Kinetic
Kinetic Friction (N)
Cleats
8.374
6.356
10.632
b. Mean force static friction and force kinetic friction of shoes
Shoes
Force StaticStatic Friction (N)
Force Kinetic
Kinetic Friction (N)
Cleats
6.283
6.151
10.659
Data Analysis
{2.png}
{1.png}
*error in graph titles; "friction" instead of "force"
From the bar graphs above, we infer that the mean force static differs significantly for each shoe between the surfaces. We see that the flats, for example, only produces a mere 2N of force static i.e. it takes only 2N of force to move flats from rest in the hallway, suggesting that either the hallways are rather too slippery for flats or the design of flats pose some hazards, or both. In contrast, we see that it takes 8N of force static to move cleats, thereby demonstrating the unsuitability of using cleats in the hallway (though, that would not be a concern for many TAS students save athletes who, for some reason, may walk in the hallways with cleats on). Casual shoes and flip flops on the other hand, fare better (less for the latter), producing a mean force static of about 6N and 4.5N respectively in the hallway. Though flip flops do better than flats to produce friction, it is still arguably low. However, if we analyze the mean force static for shoes on the tracks, we see that all produce a relatively higher amount of friction, suggesting that it is arguably safe to walk on the tracks with any of the footwear used in the experiment.
vi. Evaluation

From the bar graphs above, we infer that the mean force static differs significantly for each shoe between the surfaces. We see that the flats, for example, only produces a mere 2N of force static i.e. it takes only 2N of force to move flats from rest in the hallway, suggesting that either the hallways are rather too slippery for flats or the design of flats pose some hazards, or both. In contrast, we see that it takes 8N of force static to move cleats, thereby demonstrating the unsuitability of using cleats in the hallway (though, that would not be a concern for many TAS students save athletes who, for some reason, may walk in the hallways with cleats on). Casual shoes and flip flops on the other hand, fare better (less for the latter), producing a mean force static of about 6N and 4.5N respectively in the hallway. Though flip flops do better than flats to produce friction, it is still arguably low. However, if we analyze the mean force static for shoes on the tracks, we see that all produce a relatively higher amount of friction, suggesting that it is arguably safe to walk on the tracks with any of the footwear used in the experiment.
vi. Evaluation
of surfaces. Therefore, muchMuch evaluation can
2. Light Intensity
Purpose

Group Members: Charlie, Tiff Lay, Mika, Azfar, Jerald and Ika
{groupmembas!.png}
Group Members: Charlie, Tiff Lay, Mika, Azfar, Jerald and Ika
1. Analyzing Friction
types in countering theproducing friction on surfaces in TAS, and what are the possible effects of using a certain type of shoe(s) on the human physiology?
ForTAS?
For this experiment, types of surfaces.surfaces in the school. In order so, we chosesampled four different measured the mean force static and mean force kinetic
i. Variables
- The different types of
Dependent - The [amount of] friction produced, both the force static and force kinetic
both surfaces: cleats, flats, flip flops and casual shoes.
a. Cleats
{DSC00025.JPG}
{2.png}
{1.png}
above, we seeinfer that the each shoe between the surfaces. We see that the flats, for both surfaces, however;example, only produces a mere 2N of force static i.e. it takes only 2N of force to move flats from rest in the hallway, suggesting that either the hallways are rather too slippery for flats or the design of flats pose some hazards, or both. In contrast, we see that it takes 8N of force static to move cleats, thereby demonstrating the unsuitability of using cleats in the hallway (though, that would not be a concern for many TAS students save athletes who, for some reason, may walk in the hallways with cleats on). Casual shoes and flip flops on the other hand, fare better (less for the latter), producing a mean force kinetic does not differ as much.static of about 6N and 4.5N respectively in the hallway. Though flip flops do better than flats to produce friction, it is still arguably low. However, if we analyze the mean force static for shoes on the tracks, we see that all produce a relatively higher amount of friction, suggesting that it is arguably safe to walk on the tracks with any of the footwear used in the experiment.
vi. Evaluation
The force applied tonature of our investigation, as well the shoe (how hard one pullsnature of friction itself, forces us to be empirical and generalize many things; therefore there is no particular law/general equation that we can come up with that applies to all types of shoes on all types of surfaces. Therefore, much evaluation can be produced. In regards to the shoes)
How Parallelmethodology, it is rather unrealistic to use cleats as an example of shoes the groundTAS community would wear around in school, particularly the hallways, but it is justified choice as we attempted to investigate the Force Probe
The massamount of friction produced by these footwear on the shoe beforetrack. Though, perhaps we could have chosen to use running shoes instead of cleats. Additionally, there were some difficulties we encountered during the procedure. We found that it was rather difficult to control the horizontal angle one pulls the shoes at. As a result, we found that some of the data we generated were unusable. Some showed a higher mean force static than the mean force kinetic, which could not have been produced other than as a result of a distortion in the 500g mass'sexperiment. Though there are put intomany possible scenarios, we highly believe that the main distortion is the inability to keep the hand pulling the shoe constantly parallel to the surface. In retrospect, there was no real need to control the distance or the time it took for the shoe to be pulled across a meter, rather; what we should have done was to find a way to control the angle. Perhaps, we could have designed something to be attached to the force probe perpendicular to the surface in order to keep the angle constant.
2. Light Intensity
Purpose

{2.png}
{1.png}
as much.
vi. Evaluation
The force applied to the shoe (how hard one pulls on the shoes)

Group Members: Charlie, Tiff Lay, Mika, Azfar, Jerald and Ika
{groupmembas!.png}
{2.png}
{1.png}
for both surfaces;surfaces, however; we see that the mean force kinetic does not differ as much.
vi. Evaluation
The force applied to the shoe (how hard one pulls on the shoes)

1. Analyzing Friction
How effective are different types in countering the friction on different types of surfaces in TAS, and what are the possible effects of using a certain type of shoe(s) on the human physiology?
each surface.
i. Variables
Independent - The different types of shoes and surfaces
Dependent - The [amount of] friction produced, both the force static and force kinetic
Two different types of surfaces were used: the hallway and the tracks. Four different types of shoes were equally used on both surfaces:
a. Flats
{DSC00006.JPG} The Flats
b. Soccer cleatsCleats
{DSC00025.JPG}
b. Flats
{DSC00006.JPG}
c. Flip flops
{DSC00011.JPG}
{DSC00054.JPG}
ii. Materials
Force Probe (unit:(unit in N Newtons)
Logger Pro and Computer
Two 500g mass
Meter stick
iii. Procedure
Place1. Place the two mass equally.
Hook
2. Hook the force Logger Pro.
Pull
3. Pull the shoe the surface.
Start
4. Start collecting data one meter.
Repeat
5. Repeat steps 1 five trials.
Repeat
6. Repeat steps 1 each shoe.
Repeat
7. Repeat steps 1 both surfaces.
Calculate
8. Calculate the mean each surface.
Calculate
9. Calculate the mean surface.
iv. Processed Data
a. Mean force static and force kinetic of shoes in surface 1 (hallway)
Shoes
Force Static (N)
Force Kinetic (N)
Cleats
8.374
11.678
Flats
2.327
8.020
Flip flops
4.591
9.267
Casual shoes
6.356
10.632
b. Mean force static and force kinetic of shoes in surface 2 (tracks)
Shoes
Force Static (N)
Force Kinetic (N)
Cleats
6.283
9.738
Flats
4.103
8.601
Flip flops
6.063
9.714
Casual shoes
6.151
10.659
v. Data Analysis
{2.png}
{1.png}
From the bar graphs above, we see that the mean force static differs significantly for each shoe for both surfaces;
vi. Evaluation
The force applied to the shoe (how hard one pulls on the shoes)
How Parallel to the ground is the Force Probe
The mass of the shoe before the 500g mass's are put into the shoe
Conclusion:
2. Light Intensity
Purpose