Maksym Panas

4/12/13

Investigating the relationship between the Intial drop Height and the Rebound height of the tennis ball
Data processing lab: Raw data: Initial height (in cm) 0,5 cm Rebound height (in cm) 0,5 cm

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 40.0 22.0 21.0 23.0 28.0 23.0 60.0 33.0 33.5 33.5 34.0 33.0 80.0 43.0 42.0 42.5 42.5 44.0 100.0 52.0 54.0 53.0 52.5 52.0 120.0 62.0 61.0 63.0 62.0 63.0 140.0 71.0 72.0 72.0 72.5 73.0 160.0 78.0 80.0 79.0 80,5 81.0 180.0 88.0 87.5 88.5 89.5 89.0 To measure a systematic error for the height of rebound , we took a half of the smallest measurement on the ruler scale. Scale on the ruler was We also assume that there is no systematic uncertainty on the bottom of the scale the surface of the ruler is perfectly perpendicular to the ground. Processing : Calculating random error : Highest Value random error (H.V.) | | Lowest value random error (L.V.) | | | | | |

The greatest number of the random error is taken into a count. So in the situation , with initial height of 40 cm , we would use Since experiment was mostly done by hand with no professional equipment , such as photo gates , release mechanisms etc. , error could have occurred and its important to take it into a count for a greater accuracy of the experiment.

Calculating absolute uncertainty

Absolute uncertainty = 0.5 + 4,6 = 5,1 cm the value, then looks like :

6 cm

Finding an absolute uncertainty is very important in gathering the correct understanding of the relationship between the initial height of release and the re bounce height , since it takes into a count both: Systematic error ( caused by the equipment ) and random error ( caused by random factors that dont repeat systematically ( ex. Human eye error when measuring the height) ) in order to improve visual representation of the relationship between the initial height of release and the height of rebound .

Calculating percentage of Kinetic energy regained after the collision:

K.E. regain at 40 cm =

* 100% = 57.5 %

According to the Law of Conservation of Energy Energy cannot be destroyed or created out of nothing, it transforms from one state to another. By Calculating the Kinetic Energy regain (K.E.) we simply look on how well the energy is transferred after collision and how this transfer differs at different initial heights of release.

Processed data: Initial height (in cm) 0,5 cm 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 Average rebound height 0,5 cm 23,4 33,4 42,8 52,7 62,2 72,1 79,7 88,5 Percentage of kinetic energy regained after collision 57,6 % 55.6 % 53.5 % 52.7 % 51.8 % 51.5 % 49.8 % 49.1 % Absolute error in rebound

Max-Best fit Max-Best fit

Initial Height of release vs Rebound height

Initial Height of release (cm)

min

Best fit

Best fit- max

Height of rebound (cm)

Using the error bars from the first and the last data points, min and max slopes were drawn. Using the first and last data points best fit graph was drawn. Finding gradient of the straight line: = The gradient was calculating using two end points of the graph, we assumed that the graph is proportional however the gradient at different points on the graph still varied. Therefore using edge points led us to a more accurate value of the gradient to be obtained.

Conclusion The graph, representing the data forms a linear line showing the direct proportionality of the height of release and rebound height. It goes through all the uncertainty bars, however doesnt pass through the origin and the origin indicating on high systematic error when measuring the height of rebound (Having a slightest difference in initial drop height potentially affected the rebound height causing a shift of the entire graph, but having more control over the measurement of the initial height, than rebound, lead us to the assumption that the error when measuring initial height was tiny therefore negligible . The line nearly goes through all points and there are no outliers. The uncertainty bars are very small at some points but must still be taken into account maximum and

minimum line were plotted and labeled on the graph, but again as sees, they vary very little from the original line. Random error is quite big and affecting the precision, meaning that it was hard to repeat an experiment under similar conditions that caused the entire range of different values for measurement. But this did not have any significant impact on our overall results, or the final uncertainties since the best fit showed proportionality of the data points and passed through all of the error bars. When the tennis ball is released, energy is transformed from Potential to Kinetic. When the ball hits the ground, it deforms, so the Kinetic energy is stored as the potential energy inside of the ball. After releasing the stored potential energy, the ball regains its original shape. The collected potential energy within the ball is transformed in the Kinetic energy and the ball rebounds. With an increase in height of rebound K.E. gets transferred back into gravitational P.E. In order to visualize this regain of Kinetic energy after collision, we calculated it by finding a percentage of Potential energy lost, since K.E. gained is P.E. lost. With increase in initial drop height the % of K.E regained (or P.E. lost) decreases rapidly at the beginning by more than 1%, with each initial height increase. This can be explained by assuming that there are small energy losses at every stage that the ball goes through. The greater distance ball drops, the more air resistance it is absorbing (caused by collision with air molecules that creates a resistance of motion. This can potentially warm the air molecules, resulting in a small energy loss. Also when the ball is changing its shape it tend to warm up slightly, producing an energy loss. In addition, during the collision with the floor, you hear that classic "bouncy sound." All of it can be explained as causes of different value of %of K.E. regain obtained , since the greater the initial drop height , the greater is the effect of these factors on the ball which causes more and more difference in K.E. regain.

Evaluation The conclusion is very reasonable. The experimental value is nearly the same as the accepted value, and there were no great drawbacks in the experiment; the method went well and the data didnt show surprising results. The line of best fit easily goes through all the uncertainties, and the uncertainties were big but acceptable. This indicates that the precision of the data should be improved while carrying out the experiment next time. The vertical uncertainty bars were not drawn on because they are too small to be noted ( 0.5 cm). They made such insignificant difference and therefore they didnt impact the obtained results, and could be ignored in the final values. When Initial drop height is zero, rebound height is zero as well , therefore graph was supposed to start at origin , however not in our case due to a high systematic error when measuring the rebound height.. The controlled variables were kept constant. The data was obtained in the most careful manner possible. However there are some factors that I would change or improve if I tried to attempt the experiment next time: Height of rebound was measured without any special equipment; that could have led to inaccurate and imprecise value to be obtained. Using Photo gates would improve the collection of the rebound height illuminating a human reflexes error that probably took place when measuring the rebound height by eye. Clamps on a rail could have improved a accuracy of the measurement of an initial drop height of the ball, since the clamp would be fixed stationary at the same spot for all the trials, reducing random error significantly, whereas the human grip reflexes were used to control the initial height of the balls release.

Scale to measure the Height in General had 1cm as the smallest measurement indicating on the high systematic error , since we didnt have the possibility to measure the value of height to the smallest decimals , and had to guess that it was somewhere in the range , I would use a ruler with greater scale with more decimals on it. We couldnt assure that ball landed on the same spot, each time that clearly affected the precision of our data. Clamps on the rail, mentioned previously, could potentially solve the problem, since there were no external factors affecting the emotion of the ball, if the release point would stay constant for all of the 5 trails than the landing point would be same as well. When calculating the K.E. regain , Ive noticed that the amount by which the % values of K.E. regain decreases depends on the Drop height (the difference between the first two % values is bigger than between the last two) , saying that the K.E. regain cant decrease forever , meaning that it will get to the height where there would be no change in K.E. regain since it all of those factors ( sound , heat, air resistance (reaching terminal velocity) etc.) will reach their maximum and no more Energy will be lost from that point , when increasing the drop height. However this would be impossible to achieve in classroom condition as it requires greater values for height then 200cm in order to prove this relationship.

initial height vs rebound height

100 90 80 70 60 rebound height 50 (in cm) 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 initial height (in cm) 150 200

average rebound