You can choose your

own title as long as

it’s relevant.
The Efficiency of a Super Ball
In this lab our purpose was to determine the efficiency
Purpose is
of a superball as it is dropped from different heights .
established
Efficiency is the ratio of energy out to energy in. When
a ball strikes the ground, it does so with a certain
Key terms
amount of kinetic energy due to its speed. During the defined(efficiency,
bounce, the ball deforms as the kinetic energy is etc,) in the context
converted into elastic energy. As the ball rebounds, the with which they will
elastic energy is returned to kinetic energy. This be used. Not stand
process is not perfect however and heat energy is alone definitions.
generated as molecules are pushed against each other.
Also energy is lost to the floor and to the air as
vibrations and sound. If the ball rebounds with 90% of Frequently you will
the kinetic energy that it had before the impact then use a drawing to
we say it has an efficiency of 90%. It is possible that help make your
the ball’s efficiency is not constant; that when it is ideas more clear.
dropped from a high height, landing with great speeds,
it is more or less efficient than when at lower energies.
Our answer, therefore may not be a single number, but
instead it might be a function of how efficiency varies
over drop heights.

We make several assumptions in this lab: we assume

that air resistance is negligible and therefore that the Relevant background
entire amount of potential energy (mgh) that the ball information is
has due to its drop height is converted into kinetic provided to help
make sense of ideas
energy ( m . ( m and ) We also and future
assume that the all kinetic energy after the bounce conclusion.
returns to potential energy as the ball slows and
reaches its new bounce height.

To answer the question posed in this lab we will

compare the heights from which we drop the ball, to Overview of method
the heights to which it rebounds. Since the kinetic and how question
energy that the ball has immediately before and after will be answered.
the impact are equal to the potential energy that the
ball has at its high points before and after the drop
(due to our assumption of no significant air resistance)
and since the height of the ball is directy proportional
to its potential energy, we can determine the ball’s
efficiency by the ratio of final height /starting height.
 Efficiency =

By graphing the efficiency vs. the starting height we

will be able to see how this efficiency depends on
height. We will also show how the efficiency depends
on impact velocity by graphing it against velocity too.

Methods
We dropped a superball Clearly defined
three times from each sections to lab
height listed on the report.
data table. Each time
Key variables clearly
we measured the
shown on a
starting height and the Starting height Final diagram.
highest rebound point, hstarting Height
based on the bottom of hfinal
Nothing fancy, but if
the ball. We used a it were complicated
meterstick placed it might take two
vertically on the floor diagrams or an
explanation of how
for our measurements.
to get a
measurement.

Data and Calculations Units.

Clear labels on
columns.
Raw Data
All data shown.
Starting Final Heights
Sometimes a
Height (cm)
number may be so
(cm)
odd that you don’t
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Averag
want to include it in
e
your calculated
40 32 35 33 33.3
values, but you
50 41 41 41 41
should still include
60 48 48 46 47.3
it in your tables.
80 60 64 65 63
100 80 79 81 80 Frequently the data
120 100 96 98 98 tables on logger pro
150 117 123 120 120 get cut off. Make
200 160 160 162 160.6 sure your data
tables are complete.
No need to show
Calculated Values sample calculations
Even if you’re
for simple
referencing
Starting Efficienc operations or
Efficiency = averaging.

Show relevant
formulas.
Height y
(cm)
40 .83
50 .82
60 .79
80 .79
100 .8
120 .82
150 .8
200 .8
Feel free to include
hand written
calculations.

Velocity Efficienc
before y V=
impact
(m/s) Sample calculation
2.8 .83
3.2 .82 At 40cm
3.5 .79
4.0 .79 V= =2.8
4.5 .8 m/s
4.9 .82
5.5 .8
6.4 .8

I’m not including graphs here because this is a simple word document and I
encourage you to use Logger Pro for your graphs.

Graphs should have well labeled axes with units.

Whenever possible data points should have error bars showing your uncertainty
about the data points.

Dot to dot lines are never appropriate.

Instead use trend lines (sometimes curves). Include equations for these lines.

Summarize the data.

Address/answer the
question explicitly.

In this case, the data

Conclusion supported the conclusion
The data from this experiment shows a constant ratio clearly and in a
of height-out to height-in, meaning a constant straightforward way. It
efficiency for a super ball. We also see this result in would have sounded silly to
belabor it, but sometimes
it’s complicated or
ambiguous and takes a full
paragraph.
both of the next two graphs showing a constant
efficiency of about 80%, whether graphed against drop
height or impact speed. The slope of the first graph
0.807 indicates the efficiency to three digits of
When appropriate,
accuracy, but as I will describe in the next section, this
propose a theoretical
surely overstates our accuracy. Apparently no matter explanation for your
the amount of compression of the ball during impact, results.
the intermolecular dampening and heat generation
causes the ball to lose about 20% of its energy.

Limitations and Error Analysis

Despite this apparently very clear result, there are
several reasons to doubt this result.
Describe your
First, we made the assumption that no energy was lost confidence in a
to air resistance. During the bounce the ball may be general way. I do this
a bit with the first
more efficient than 80% and some of this loss may be
sentence, and a bit
due to air resistance. However, upon reflection, I think
more with the last.
ignoring air resistance remains a good assumption. If
air resistance was significant then the higher drops
should have experienced a greater percentage of
energy loss. That they didn’t, indicates that air
resistance wasn’t important and the bounce efficiency
really was 80%. (Or that there was a big coincidence Support your claim of
about factors exactly canceling out.) confidence, or lack
thereof, by
More importantly, we only tested a limited range of discussing the
heights. We know that eventually balls stop bouncing, strengths and
meaning that from some tiny drop height nothing weaknesses of your
experiment. A range
happens, 0% efficiency. This probably happens when
of possible
the compression between molecules during the bounce
approaches is given
is on the same order of magnitude as the random on the assignment
motion of the molecules due to their temperature. We sheet.
also know that given enough speed a superball will
break as the compressional forces exceed the
intermolecular forces. To improve this experiment it
would be good to expand the range of data collection
to investigate this nonlinear behavior and each end of At least two aspects of
the data. your error analysis
should have a
Finally, while 80% efficiency is probably a reasonably quantitative element.
accurate result, numerous measurement limitations Here I’ve described my
prevented us from getting a more accurate answer. original uncertainty
quantitatively, the size
We estimate that we could hold the ball at our
of my error bars
quantitatively and how
the original uncertainty
affected the calculated
efficiency value.
established drop height within 0.2cm of accuracy. Our
bounce height measurements were not nearly as good
unfortunately. Sometimes our three watchers would
disagree on a bounce height by up to 3 cm, and our
multiple trials for one case spanned 6 cm (150 cm drop
height). We indicated this uncertainty with 3 cm error
bars on our final height data. Since 3cm represents a
3% uncertainty in our median drop height of 100cm, we
decided that our final efficiency values had a 3%
uncertainty and put error bars of 0.03 on them. This
probably overrepresents the uncertainty of the large
drops and underrepresents the uncertainty of the small Error propagation
drops, but our graphing program has limited (how original errors
functionality for setting error bar size. It also assumes affect calculated
that the large uncertainty in the bounce height makes values) can be a very
irrelevant the small uncertainty in the drop height. complicated thing.
I’m alright with your
Our actual calculated efficiencies are all within 3% of making some
81%, as seen in the fact that the line of best fit passes simplifying
through the error bars of all of the points. This and the generalities like I
fact that the graph has a y intercept of 0, predicting have here.
that 0 drop height would not bounce, add to our
confidence in our result of 81±3% for the efficiency of
our superball no matter its drop height.

Your error analysis

part is where you can
really show off a deep
understanding of
what’s relevant in the
lab. Put some thought
into it. Show off.