Projectile Motion Lab

Constants:
Ramp Height: 15.01 cm 0.05 cm
Free Fall Height: 78.15 cm 0.05 cm

Predictions:
Horizontal velocity:
2()() =
2(9.8)(0.1501) = 1.715 /
Uncertainty and Error Propagation:
15.01 cm 0.05 cm
0.05
100 = 0.3331112592 %
15.01
15.01 cm 0.3331112592 %
0.3331112592

1
= 0.1665556296 %
2

1.715 0.001665556296
= 1.715 / 0.003 /

Time of Fall:
1
= + 2
2
0.7815 = 4.9 2
0.7815/4.9 = 0.3993617356
Uncertainty and Error Propagation:
Time of Fall: 0.3994 0.0001

Horizontal Distance

Time of Freefall

X Velocity

Trial 1

0.44 m 0.01 m

0.41 s 0.03 s

1.1 m/s 0.1 m/s

Trial 2

0.43 m 0.01 m

0.44 s 0.03 s

1.0 m/s 0.1 m/s

Trial 3
Trial 4

0.44 m 0.01 m
0.44 m 0.01 m

0.44 s 0.03 s
0.41 s 0.03 s

1.0 m/s 0.1 m/s

1.1 m/s 0.1 m/s

Horizontal velocity calculations:

v=

d
t

v=

0.439
= 0.99546 m/s
0.441

Error propagation and uncertainty:

0.01
0.03
(
100) + (
100) = 20.4184939 %
0.439
0.441
0.99546 0.204184939 = 1.0 m/s 0.1 m/s

Averages:
Horizontal distance average:
0.439 + 0.432 + 0.440 + 0.435
= 0.44 m 0.01 m
4
Time of freefall average:
0.407 + 0.407 + 0.441 + 0.441
= 0.42 0.03
4
Horizontal velocity average:
1.0614 + 1.068796 + 0.99546 + 0.9977324
= 1.0 / 0.1 /
4

Data Analysis:
Percent Difference:
| |
100 =
( + ) 2
Time of Freefall:
|0.3993617356 0.424|
100 = 5.98% = 6.0%
(0.3993617356 + 0.424) 2
Horizontal Speed:
|1.715 1.030854602|
100 = 49.8 % = 50. %
(1.715 + 1.030854602) 2

Part 2
While our experimental results differed greatly from our predicted results, the measured values
were still feasible. In both cases the measured results were slower than our predicted result,
which makes sense as our predicted values did not account for friction or air resistance. In the
case of time of freefall, the measured result was slightly slower than the predicted result, 6.0%
different, but within the experimental uncertainty. That being said, every trial had a slower
measured time of freefall than predicted, which can be attributed to the air resistance on the ball
as it fell. The horizontal velocity however, differed by 50.%! Again, the measured results were
consistently slower than the predicted values. The much larger discrepancy between the two can
be attributed to air resistance but also the friction of the ball as it rolled down the ramp. The
friction greatly slowed the velocity of the ball before it even started its freefall. The results of
the horizontal velocity measurements and predictions were not within the experimental
uncertainty, and the fact that the predicted freefall time was within the uncertainty of the
measured freefall time was simply due to the rather large uncertainty associated with our method
of timing. In both cases a clear trend emerged in which the measured results were consistently
slower than their predicted values.

Discussion:
1. The purpose of this lab was measure and compare the time of fall and horizontal velocity
to predicted values using uncertainties. Our measured results ended up being consistently
slower than the predicted values. The horizontal velocity was on average 0.7 m/s 0.2 m/s
slower than predicted and the time of freefall was on average 0.02 s 0.03 s slower than
predicted, which was within the uncertainty. In this lab we found out that the horizontal and
vertical components of the ball can be calculated independently of each other and used to
find many aspects of the balls motion. We also found that the balls motion can be
calculated experimentally using distance and time measurements taken from the trials. In our
lab, we predicted the balls horizontal velocity to be 1.715 m/s 0.003 m/s and its time of
freefall to be 0.3994 s 0.0001 s. We then determined the balls horizontal velocity
experimentally to be 1.0 m/s 0.2 m/s and its time of freefall to be 0.42 s 0.03 s.
2. The difference between our predicted results and measured values implies that our
predictions were wrong, or the lab contained systematic sources of error. In particular, the
fact that every single trial was slower than the predicted values very strongly indicates a
systematic source of error or a flaw in our predictions. Both results do comply with the laws
of physics, if drag is included. They do not however, comply with the kinematics formulas
alone. Technically the time of freefall results do comply with the predictions of the formulas
within uncertainty, but this is only due to the large experimental uncertainty of the measured
results, making air resistance technically negligible. The horizontal velocity predictions
however, differed greatly from our measured values. This is likely due to the friction on the
ball as it rolled down the ramp. The ball most likely left the ramp at a slower velocity than
predicted. Air resistance also slowed the ball but was again probably mostly negligible in
comparison to the friction of the ramp.
3. This lab contained several sources of systematic error, as well as a few random errors.
Possible random errors include whether or not the ball was released cleanly, and if it was
released from the very top of the ramp, both of which could have slowed the balls horizontal
velocity. A source of error in our predictions is the lack of accounting for air resistance,
which would have slowed both the balls fall and horizontal velocity, and friction, which
greatly slowed the balls horizontal velocity. Whether or not the desk was level would have
also affected the experimental results. If the ball was launched at an angle above the
horizontal it would slow the balls initial horizontal velocity as well as increased the time of
freefall for the ball.
There were also potential sources of error within our measuring techniques. These were
included within the uncertainties in order to minimize their effect on the end result. For any
measurements with the meter stick we assigned the uncertainty as 0.005 m, which is fifty
percent of the smallest marking on the meter stick. The exception to this was the
measurements of the balls horizontal displacement. This was assigned an uncertainty of
0.01 m. This was assigned because the size of the circles Student A drew to mark where the
ball landed were approximately 0.02 m in diameter, and 0.01 m from the center of the
circle would be within that range. We assigned an uncertainty of 0.03 s to the time of
freefall. This was because our method of determining time of freefall was by using the

tracker software, which was limited to frame by frame. There were several trials in which
there was no frame of the ball hitting the ground or leaving the ramp, most were frames of
slightly after or before it hit the ground or left the ramp. Because the frame rate was 30
frames per second, we determined that in order for the uncertainty to account for both
inaccuracy of the launch time and the time it hit the ground it should be about half of the time
0.5
between each frame times two( 30 2). Half because if it was greater than half the time
between each frame, the ball could technically line up better with the previous frame, in
which case we would have marked it there, and multiplied by two to account for the potential
error happening twice, once at launch and then again at the end of the freefall.
4. One possible improvement would be to drop the ball into a box of sand. This would stop
the ball from bouncing and allow for a much more accurate measurement of the horizontal
distance. Another way to minimize the random error would be to use a more mechanical
way of releasing the ball, such as a gate. This would at the very least keep the release
consistent, and at best eliminate the potential for error during the release. If possible, it
would have been better to use a camera with a higher frame rate, as there was significant
blurring as the ball sped up. If this isnt possible, using a dark background would at least
make the ball more clear when it was travelling at higher speeds, as the ball blended in to the
bright background. Another step to minimize error would be to make sure the ramp is level,
this could be done by either making sure the desk is level, or placing spacers of some kind
under the ramp to level it. A level would not be needed, as the bottom of the white board
could be used as a reference to ensure the ramp is flat.

Part 3(Review)
Unfortunately, the app VidAnalysis Free kept crashing on my phone. On top of this the
small touch screen and my big thumbs didnt work well together, and I had trouble accurately
placing points. Instead I used a computer program called Tracker: Video Analysis and
Modeling Tool. I found it to be very useful, and easy to use once I understood it. It had a
very steep but short learning curve and a very large manual. This was only a problem at first
though, as it was very easy to use once I learned how. I was impressed by the in program
video editing software which could make simple adjustments to the picture quality and video
length. The tracking itself could be done either with point mass, or automatically by the
computer, provided the picture is clear enough. One of the best features was the option to
create and analyse graphs of any aspect of the objects motion. It was perfect for finding the
freefall time, as well as horizontal velocity. One downside to Tracker is that there are no
units, which can be confusing, especially when graphing and taking slopes. I would
definitely use this program for future projects as I came nowhere close to reaching its limits
with this lab. On top of the ability to create and analyse graphs, Tracker can be used to
model forces, vectors and equations which may be very useful in future labs.