Josh Denney

Projectiles: Lab 3

October 16, 2014

Teddy Zirkle: Moses Arevalo

Theory

The theory of this lab can be explained, in its entirety, as determining the angle that will
provide a projectile with the furthest possible range, while ignoring air resistance in the
calculations. Intuition tells us that the angle will be that of 45 measured from the horizontal.

Apparatus

The apparatus that was utilized in this lab experiment was a compression powered plastic
rocket. The rocket was assembled with a pressurized cap located near the payload. The rubber
payload provided a high coefficient of restitution for the impact resulting from the return accent
to the ground. Compression was delivered to the rocket via a bike tire air pump. The Rocket
compression cap was fastened onto a cylinder which the rocket was then slid over and fastened
on as well. The fit was tight, as to allow compressed air to build inside the cylinder. Two boards
fastened with a hinge held the rocket at the desired angle. The boards were made to
accommodate a specific angle or wedge, by a component cut out acting perpendicular to the
hinge. The compression tube was fixed on top of the angled board, directed outwards. The bike
tire air pump was fastened to the compression tube by a small air valve.

Procedure

After assembly of the rocket apparatus, the procedure was ready to be executed. Prior to
our selected angle of launch, three vertical launches had to take place. This was accomplished
with one team member firing the rocket into the air three times, while the remaining two
members recorded each duration of flight. This resulted in six measurements to insure accuracy.
Angled launches began by unrolling a measuring tape that extended the length of the field. Two
team members remained in the field ready to receive the rocket and mark and record the point of
initial impact. One team member remained at the launch site to charge the rocket each time. This
procedure was executed six times.
Data
t (s) R (ft.) R (m)

7.8 253.75 77.3

7.94 274 83.5
7.66 265 80.8
7.73 257 78.3
7.67 287.25 87.5
7.85 250.5 76.3

We collected our data by hand. Subsequently, we

transferred the data into excel where we calculated our values and graphed the data. We used the
functions built into excel to calculate mean, standard deviation, and the standard deviation of the
mean.

Data Analysis

t (s) R (ft.) R (m)

7.8 253.75 77.3

7.94 274 83.5
7.66 265 80.8
7.73 257 78.3
7.67 287.25 87.5
7.85 250.5 76.3
7.78 264.6 80.6 AVG
0.109 4.26 STDEV
 V0 (m/s) Uncertainty (m/s) v02 Uncertainty (m2/s2)

38.136375 0.537602655 28.99451255

Gravity (m/s2) Uncertainty (m/s2)
9.81 0.01

Rmax theoretical (m) Uncertainty (m)

132.5396164 2.645755406

Ratio of R/Rmax Uncertainty

0.608429893 0.034344796

Morning Lab Data

q (deg) r r
20 0.87 0.02
30 0.866 0.018
50 1.06 0.05
70 0.85 0.06
35 0.837 0.017
30 1.05 0.05
40 0.93 0.05
55 0.71 0.04
45 0.82 0.07
35 0.94 0.02
65 0.61 0.03
60 0.75 0.02
 1.2

0.9 f(x) = - 0x^2 + 0.04x

R = 0.98
Ratio of r

0.6

0.3

0
0 20 40 60 80
Angle (deg)

To begin or data analysis, we first calculated the mean and standard deviation of the mean
for the vertical launch time of flight and the six measured ranges. We found the mean by adding
all values up and dividing by their total amount. To find the standard deviation, we used the
equation:

s=
x 21+ x 22+ + x 2n
N 1

To find the standard deviation of the mean we used:

s
x=
N
We then calculated the initial velocity of the projectile. We used g = 9.81 0.01 m/s^2 and the
1 2
equation a ( t )=0=v 0 t+ g t . We solved for v 0 .
2

(
2 2
x
We used the equation f =f
x )( )
+ y
y
to calculate our uncertainty.

v 20 sin ( 245 )
Next, we found the predicted maximum range using the equation Rmax = .
g

We used the same equation for uncertainty to calculate our uncertainty.

Finally, we calculated the ratio of the measure range to the maximum range. To calculate our
uncertainty, we used:

( x 2 y 2

f =f
x )( )
+
y

Our graph was made using the results from the class and excel.

Conclusion

Overall, the data that was collected is not accurate enough for us to determine a relatively
precise angle in which range is maximized. The r2 value of the graph was 0.299, which tells us
that there was no good fit for the data. It might be deduced, however, that there is a slight
increase in the range throughout the range of degrees: 30-50. This tentatively tells us that our
prediction was correct.