Scribd
Upload
183 views4 pages

Physics Laboratory Activity 3: Free Fall

Using a manually operated stopwatch would introduce human error into the timing measurements. A human is not able to time intervals as precisely as an automated sensor. The stopwatch timing would not be as accurate, which would result in less precise measurements of the rate of fall and calculations of acceleration due to gravity. This human error from imperfect timing would cause the experimental results to differ compared to using an automated sensor.

Uploaded by

Gisella F. Velasco
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
183 views4 pages

Physics Laboratory Activity 3: Free Fall

Using a manually operated stopwatch would introduce human error into the timing measurements. A human is not able to time intervals as precisely as an automated sensor. The stopwatch timing would not be as accurate, which would result in less precise measurements of the rate of fall and calculations of acceleration due to gravity. This human error from imperfect timing would cause the experimental results to differ compared to using an automated sensor.

Uploaded by

Gisella F. Velasco
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

PS 2 – J Group 9

Leader: Victor Tan


Members: Jayne Orlina Enrico Rapi
Gisella Velasco Alvin Villanueva

Physics Laboratory Activity 3: Free Fall

Case 1: Dropping (Initial Velocity = 0)

Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6
Slope (m/s2) 9.559 9.891 9.891 9.483 9.478 9.625

Average Minimum Maximum


Acceleration (m/s2) 9.655 9.478 9.891

Acceleration due to gravity (g) 9.7 + 0.2 m/s2


Precision 2.1%

Computations
Value of Uncertainty: Precision:
|Minimum – Maximum| ( Value of Uncertainty ) x 100
2 Average
|9.478 – 9.891| = 0.2 ( 0.2 ) x 100 = 2.1%
2 9.7
Case 2: Thrown Downward (Initial Velocity, downward)

Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6
Slope (m/s2) 9.445 9.607 9.160 9.110 9.623 9.194

Average Minimum Maximum


Acceleration (m/s2) 9.357 9.110 9.623

Acceleration due to gravity (g) 9.4 + 0.3 m/s2


Precision 3.2%

Computations
Value of Uncertainty: Precision:
|Minimum – Maximum| ( Value of Uncertainty ) x 100
2 Average
|9.110 – 9.623| = 0.3 ( 0.3 ) x 100 = 3.2%
2 9.4
Case 3: Thrown Upward (Initial Velocity, upward)

Trial 1 2 3 4 5 6
Slope (m/s2) 9.310 9.034 9.822 9.930 10.113 10.363

Average Minimum Maximum


Acceleration (m/s2) 9.762 9.034 10.363

Acceleration due to gravity (g) 9.8 + 0.7 m/s2


Precision 7.1%

Computations
Value of Uncertainty: Precision:
|Minimum – Maximum| ( Value of Uncertainty ) x 100
2 Average
|9.034 – 10.363| = 0.7 ( 0.7 ) x 100 = 7.1%
2 9.8
1. Describe the motion of a free falling object.

2. Which one gave a better fit, linear or quadratic? Why?


The linear fit gave the better fit. Since the graph is not parabolic, the graph only
made a straight line making it a linear graph.

3. Compare your experimental and theoretical results.


Case Theoretical Experimental % Error
Acceleration Acceleration
(Gravity) (Average
Acceleration)
1 9.8 9.655 1%
2 9.8 9.357 5%
3 9.8 9.762 0.4%

Computations
% Error Case 1 % Error Case 2 % Error Case 3
|9.8 – 9.655| x 100 = 1% |9.8 – 9.357| x 100 = 5% |9.8 – 9.762| x 100 = 0.4%
9.8 9.8 9.8

4. Had you used a manually operated stopwatch to time the rate of fall, why would the results
differ in this experiment? Why?

You might also like