As discussed in the data and analysis section, there were many problems with our experiments which may have been the cause of our high percent error.  First, the rods underneath the PVC pipes and the ribbed mat created a small potential well.  This well did not exist in the previous experiment.  This could have been a cause for the unusually high force exerted on the piston at lower values of x.  Not only were the rods a problem, but the Squiggle Balls as well.  All of the balls seemed to rotate at slightly different frequencies, and a few periodically stopped rotating when they hit a wall.  The more balls we had in the experiment, the more balls we had that would stop rotating.  The more the balls stopped rotating, the more we had to interfere with the experiment by slightly tapping the balls.  This slight tap may have been the reason why the time-average force on the piston for 6 balls was higher than normal.  Also our setup was not consistent between our measurements for 3, 4, 5 and 6 balls.  For N=3, the force sensor was held parallel to the bar, and held in place by weights placed from behind.  For N=4, 5, and 6, the force sensor was held at an angle to the piston and held in place by tape on the frame.  This could be one reason why the force was higher for N=4, 5, and 6 balls. 

            Although we had many problems with this part of the lab, we still came up with a fairly consistent equation of state: <F> = aNx^-b a=.906 b= -.9185.  We found that the “pressure” was dependent mainly on the area of the enclosure and the amount of molecules present.  So, the basis behind Boyles law was confirmed in this educational experiment.    

            In the second part of the lab, we still encountered the same sources of error, but with the addition of another source.  The piston, which was supposed to be able to move freely when force was exerted upon it, did not act as it was supposed to.  The force of friction between the piston and the outer walls, was greater than many of the forces exerted upon it by the balls.  Sometimes the wall would be pushed into an angle.  Our Motion Sensor would periodically pick up large spikes in the data which we attributed to the wall in the back of the room.  These large spikes that were past 2 m in height were eliminated from our data.  Since the length of our container was only 0.70 m, we felt this was a safe assumption.  This non-negligible force of friction is a large factor in the width of our experimental results.  The peaks of our data fit with the theoretical probability curves we expected. 

            In conclusion, although there were many sources of both theoretical and experimental error, we believe that this lab greatly enhanced our knowledge of how gaseous systems work.  The Squiggle Balls were also a great source of entertainment.  ;)