Writing a coursework, especially on a challenging topic like Physics, can be a demanding and time-

consuming task. Physics coursework on topics such as "Craters Secondary Data" requires not only a
solid understanding of the subject but also proficiency in data analysis and interpretation. Students
often find themselves grappling with complex concepts, extensive research, and the need for precise
calculations.

Physics coursework typically involves conducting experiments, collecting data, and presenting
findings in a structured and coherent manner. Analyzing data, drawing conclusions, and meeting the
required academic standards can add to the difficulty of the task. Moreover, time constraints and
other academic commitments can further complicate the writing process.

For those who find themselves overwhelmed or struggling to meet deadlines, seeking assistance can
be a viable option. ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔ is a platform that offers academic writing services,
including coursework assistance. Their experienced writers can provide support in researching,
organizing, and crafting a well-written coursework that meets the academic requirements. It's
essential to remember that seeking help should be done ethically, and any external assistance should
be used as a supplement to one's own efforts.

While ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔ may offer valuable support, it's crucial for students to engage with the
content, understand the concepts, and use the provided materials responsibly. Academic integrity
should always be a priority, and external assistance should be seen as a tool for learning and
improvement rather than a shortcut.

In conclusion, writing a Physics coursework on a topic like "Craters Secondary Data" can be
challenging, and students may consider seeking assistance from reliable platforms like ⇒
HelpWriting.net ⇔ to navigate through the complexities of the task. However, it's important to
approach external help with a commitment to academic integrity and a genuine desire to understand
and engage with the coursework material.
One thing I can predict with my graph is that there is a limit to how big the crater can become this is
clear from the graph because on both graphs there is a slight curve near to the end which I predict
that will level off at some point due to the fact the it will not be able to gain anymore speed at some
point onwards. In my opinion, the diameter of a metroite will always be the same, no matter from
which how far it has hit the Earth or moon. If I were to go from 5cm straight to 20cm, I would have
missed a lot of important information, and therefore making my experiment all the more accurate.
Therefore, when it comes down crashing with great speed, the depth of the crater, as well as the
amount of matter melted will be larger. The output variable (what I will measure) will be the size of
the crater produced. Upon further reflection, I'd also like to add that the reason why any ball
penetrates in the flour has something to do with the ball's position and properties prior to its impact.
The output variable (what I will measure) will be the size of the crater produced. I should have taken
readings from 0cm up to 20cm in 5cm intervals and I should have also taken more readings maybe up
to as high as 1 meter. As the pendulum ball hits the surface of the sand, the kinetic energy will
disperse into these spaces. Does the height of a crater affect the diameter of the crater produced?
Step 2: Identify which balls land in each quadrant. I have not found any anomalous readings and this
shows that the results collected were accurate enough. None of them really consistently go up, but
all of them are larger on the 200 cm drop than the 30 cm drop. However when dropping the marble I
did not measure the volume manually. Experiment To Investigate What Affects the Size of a Crater.
Any sort of precautions has to be kept the same otherwise it could disturb any pattern on my results
and therefore giving me a false interpretation on the experiment. This shows that the current method
is not extremely reliable and changes can be made to improve the experiment. If I were to repeat the
experiment I could possibly use a different piece of equipment just so I can see if it would make a
difference to my results. The only disadvantage is that by using this formula, the crater has to be a
perfect semi-sphere, however by eye the crater was obviously not a perfect semi-sphere. If I were to
repeat the experiment I could possibly use a different piece of equipment just so I can see if it would
make a difference to my results. However I cannot be 100% sure that it was flat, and this is why it
was the most inaccurate and unreliable part of the experiment. In many cases, there is a central peak
or several peaks within a crater. And by using a formula results according to the accuracy of the
diameters would be more reliable. What affects the size of craters formed by falling objects? I’ll link
to the shorter one and embed the longer one below. This effort has given me a very accurate
conclusion and reliable graphs and results, which corresponded greatly to my hypothesis and the
science behind the experiment. This would have made sure that the sand was roughly the same
density throughout. Eventually when the ball had been dropped from a high enough height it would
have penetrated deep enough into the sand to reach the bottom. Also with more averages, it would
make it far more accurate, thus giving me a more reliable conclusion and graphs. However, you must
have noticed that most of the craters we see on the moon and as well as the Earth are round.
Investigate a factor that might affect the size of a crater made by a falli. This would allow me to
remove the ball with the magnet and thus measure the depth of the crater. Firstly, as I mentioned
above, we could have made an error when measuring the diameter of the crater, because of all the
ejecta that was around it, the higher distance we threw the marble from. The results for this
relationship are not sound enough for a conclusion to be made. Any sort of precautions has to be
kept the same otherwise it could disturb any pattern on my results and therefore giving me a false
interpretation on the experiment. The crater length does indeed vary proportionally to the vertical
height, but the crater depth appears to have no relationship whatsoever with the height (therefore the
entry speed). If I were to repeat the experiment I could possibly use a different piece of equipment
just so I can see if it would make a difference to my results. This was because the higher the object
was dropped from the more gravitational potential energy the object gathered, increasing the speed
of the ball, concluding the ball had more of an impact on the surface, creating a bigger crater as the
gravitational energy was transferred as kinetic energy to the sand. All of the gravitational potential
energy is converted into kinetic energy when the ball reaches the surface, resulting in a larger crater.
For instance when I any movement of the tin of sand could disturb the created crater and therefore
changing the diameter of the crater. To find out if my graph would level off I tried dropping the ball
bearing from 2 metres, twice my maximum height of 1 metre. One impact event, depending on the
size of the impactor, can form hundreds of millions of secondary craters at essentially the same time.
Once the meteor comes in contact with the ground, any portion that can get squished is only a factor
that absorbes the energy from the impact. I think that in our case, the diameter got a bit larger every
time, because of the ejecta around it, that made the diameter look larger. This is because when the
meteor goes through the atmosphere, it gets burned up, because of its massive speed, and it is mostly
left falling to Earth in a rounded shape. If I were to drop it with my hand using the naked eye, this
would make my results unreliable. Thus giving me a more accurate picture of what was occurring.
The only way to know for sure is to plot a graph of log length against Angle for those last five
points. Overall in this experiment there is a minimal chance of being injured. If I were to drop it with
my hand using the naked eye, this would make my results unreliable. By using averages, it is much
easier to make a clear judgment of how the results are. That is because meteorite have a lot of impact
on the surface of the planet they are hitting into, as they erode into it, and the matter that is eroded
gets thrown all around the crater. To do this and obtain a high quality of results I would have to use
new sand every time and pour water into the sand to make it denser. This could be due to the masses
of the balls being slightly different. If the potential energy is bigger, therefore the kinetic energy is
bigger when the ball reaches the sand, resulting in the crater having a large size diameter. However,
if I could I would like to use a ruler with an even smaller scale, maybe with tenths of millimetres on
as this would allow me to be more precise and accurate when I measure the diameter of my crater.
Some craters that head to Earth are not quite big enough, and get burned up by our atmosphere. I am
beginning to think that the deeper flour made a difference, as it may have compressed the flour with
the smaller bucket. What affects the size of craters formed by falling objects? I have not found any
anomalous readings and this shows that the results collected were accurate enough.
Any sort of precautions has to be kept the same otherwise it could disturb any pattern on my results
and therefore giving me a false interpretation on the experiment. I am going to use the same ball
bearing and the same depth of sand throughout in order to make this a controlled, fair test. Share to
Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest. This is why I chose to repeat each reading 6 times to
make sure of any changes. However if you were to drop the marble from a high distance, the
gravitational potential energy is much higher, as it has more time to build up this energy, which gives
you a bigger crater and more kinetic energy. Secondary craters form when material ejected from a
larger impact event impacts the Martian surface. How do you see volume influencing meteorite
penetration? Mass v. The linear relationship would suggest that there is a constant that could be found
and applied to balls of any diameter. The kinetic energy of the object is converted into kinetic energy
of the ground material. There are just two obvious and clear outliers, which I have circled in blue as
well. The type of ball will be controlled by using the same snooker ball throughout the experiment. I
could then be sure that the marble was dropped from the right distance. This was because as it had
more potential energy it penetrated deeper and deeper into the sand throwing out more sand;
however the deeper the ball went into the sand the more compacted the sand became. One thing I
can predict with my graph is that there is a limit to how big the crater can become this is clear from
the graph because on both graphs there is a slight curve near to the end which I predict that will level
off at some point due to the fact the it will not be able to gain anymore speed at some point
onwards. We dropped the ball 1m high and dropped it into a bucket of flour that was much deeper.
An Investigation to find out how Dropping Height affects size of a Crater c. However, you must
have noticed that most of the craters we see on the moon and as well as the Earth are round. The
only disadvantage is that by using this formula, the crater has to be a perfect semi-sphere, however
by eye the crater was obviously not a perfect semi-sphere. I have considered this and decided that I
would use the formula anyway. Short of painstakingly finding identically sized balls of exact masses,
the best option was to cut a table tennis ball in half. In order to improve my reliability of the results I.
A longer tray would have been able to produce a wider range of results. And by using a formula
results according to the accuracy of the diameters would be more reliable. Join our team of reviewers
and help other students learn. After this if the ball had been dropped from a higher height it would
have no longer produced a bigger crater because there would be no sand left to push outwards. If I
were to go from 5cm straight to 20cm, I would have missed a lot of important information, and
therefore making my experiment all the more accurate. Callipers could be used to measure the width
of the crater whereas better technology could be used to drop the ball. This shows me that potential
energy is not quite equal to work done in this experiment. This will vary my results, therefore making
it easier and more reliable to make a clear conclusion on my results. I will keep the density of the
sand and the size of the ball constant.