1.

Notes/Introduction
- Releasing a bob from rest, and recording its position at each time interval.
- The position is recorded by the the burnt holes on the paper, and each dot has a
1
time interval of 60
𝑠 because the spark timer is set to a frequency of 60Hz.
𝑡𝑁
- Plot the position vs. time graph to determine 𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑑, by plugging 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2
into the
velocity function.
- Calculate the average speed of the bob, and make a plot 𝑣𝑛𝑚 𝑣𝑠. 𝑡𝑛, then use the
equation to determine the values of 𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣0.
- Show that the average speed between 𝑡 = 0 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡 = 𝑡𝑁 is equal to the
instantaneous speed at the midpoint of the data set for constant acceleration.
- Calculate the average speed using the endpoints of the data set, obtaining a second
value of 𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑑.

2.Data

a. Measuring the position of the bob after each time interval with a metre ruler.

n Time(s) Position(cm) Position(m)

0 0 0 0

1 1 2.37 0.0237
60

2 2 4.81 0.0481
60

3 3 7.27 0.0727
60

4 4 10.16 0.1016
60

5 5 13.29 0.1329
60
6 6 16.69 0.1699
60

7 7 20.38 0.2038
60

8 8 24.33 0.2433
60

9 9 28.57 0.2857
60

10 10 32.99 0.3299
60

11 11 37.77 0.3777
60

12 12 42.82 0.4282
60

13 13 47.95 0.4795
60

14 14 53.69 0.5369
60

15 15 59.53 0.5953
60

16 16 65.59 0.6559
60

17 17 72.01 0.7201
60

18 18 78.65 0.7865
60

19 19 85.53 0.8553
60

20 20 92.72 0.9272
60

21 21 100.21 1.0021
60

22 22 107.93 1.0793
60
3.Calculations
a. Method I

Based on the graph, the equation obtained is in the form of:

1 2
𝑦(𝑡) = 𝑦0 + 𝑉0𝑡 + 2
𝑔𝑡 , which is
2
𝑦 = 2. 4𝐸 − 3 + 1. 16𝑥 + 4. 85𝑥

I. Finding the initial velocity

𝑉0 = 1. 16𝑚/𝑠

II. FInding the value of g

1 2
2
𝑔 = 4. 85𝑚/𝑠
2
𝑔 = 2(4. 85𝑚/𝑠 )
2
𝑔 = 9. 70𝑚/𝑠

III. Obtaining the velocity function from the position function.

2
𝑦(𝑡) = 2. 4𝐸 − 3 + 1. 16𝑡 + 4. 85𝑡
𝑑𝑦
𝑉(𝑡) = 𝑑𝑡
= 1. 16 + 9. 70𝑡
 𝑡𝑁
IV. Finding the value of 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 by plugging 𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2
into the velocity function.
𝑉(𝑡) = 1. 16 + 9. 70𝑡
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 1. 16 + 9. 70(𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑑)
𝑡22
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 1. 16 + 9. 70( 2
)
(22/60)
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 1. 16 + 9. 70( 2
)
11
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 1. 16 + 9. 70( 60 )

𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2. 9383333𝑚/𝑠

𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2. 94𝑚/𝑠

b. Method II

I.Two sample calculations

𝑦1−𝑦0
𝑉01 = 𝑡1−𝑡0
(0.0237𝑚)−(0𝑚)
𝑉01 = 1
( 60 𝑠)−(0𝑠)
 0.0237𝑚
𝑉01 = 1
60
𝑠

𝑉01 = 1. 422𝑚/𝑠
𝑉01 = 1. 4𝑚/𝑠

𝑦2−𝑦1
𝑉12 = 𝑡2−𝑡1
(0.0481𝑚)−(0𝑚)
𝑉12 = 2 1
( 60 𝑠)−( 60 𝑠)
0.0481𝑚
𝑉12 = 1
60
𝑠

𝑉12 = 2. 886𝑚/𝑠
𝑉12 = 2. 9𝑚/𝑠

Based on the graph, the equation obtained is:

𝑉 = 9. 59𝑥 + 1. 11

II. Finding the initial velocity

𝑉0 = 9. 59(0) + 1. 11
𝑉0 = 1. 11𝑚/𝑠

III. Finding the value of g

1 2 𝑑𝑦
(If 𝑦(𝑡) = 𝑦0 + 𝑉0𝑡 + 2
𝑔𝑡 , then deriving it to 𝑉(𝑡) by using 𝑑𝑡
would make it 𝑉(𝑡) = 𝑉0 + 𝑔𝑡, or in
other words g is the slope of the graph.)
2
𝑔 = 9. 59𝑚/𝑠

c. Method III
 I.Proving that 𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 and 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 are equal
- Average velocity
𝑦2−𝑦1
𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 𝑡2−𝑡1
𝑦𝑁−𝑦0
𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 𝑡𝑁−𝑡0
𝑦𝑁−𝑦0
𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 𝑡𝑁−(0)
𝑦𝑁−𝑦0
𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 𝑡𝑁

- Velocity at midpoint
- Equation for midpoint of time
𝑡0+𝑡𝑁
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2
(0)+𝑡𝑁
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2
𝑡𝑁
𝑡𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2
- Instantaneous velocity at midpoint
1 2
𝑦𝑓 − 𝑦𝑖 = 𝑉𝑖𝑡 + 2
𝑎𝑡
 1 2
𝑦𝑓 − 𝑦𝑖 − 𝑉𝑖𝑡 = 2
𝑎𝑡
𝑦𝑓−𝑦𝑖−𝑉𝑖𝑡𝑁
2( 2 )=𝑎
𝑡𝑁
𝑦𝑓−𝑦𝑖−𝑉𝑖𝑡𝑁
𝑎 = 2( 2 )
𝑡𝑁

𝑉𝑓 = 𝑉𝑖 + 𝑎𝑡
𝑡𝑁 𝑡𝑁
𝑉( 2
) = 𝑉𝑖 + 𝑎( 2
)
𝑡𝑁 𝑦𝑓−𝑦𝑖−𝑉𝑖𝑡𝑁 𝑡𝑁
𝑉( 2
) = 𝑉𝑖 + (2( 2 ))( 2
)
𝑡𝑁
𝑡𝑁 𝑦𝑓−𝑦𝑖−𝑉𝑖𝑡𝑁
𝑉( 2
) = 𝑉𝑖 + ( 2 )(𝑡𝑁)
𝑡𝑁
𝑡𝑁 𝑦𝑓−𝑦𝑖−𝑉𝑖𝑡𝑁
𝑉( 2
) = 𝑉𝑖 + ( 𝑡𝑁
)

𝑡𝑁 𝑉𝑖𝑡𝑁+𝑦 −𝑦𝑖−𝑉𝑖𝑡𝑁
𝑓
𝑉( 2
)= 𝑡𝑁
𝑡𝑁 𝑦𝑓−𝑦𝑖
𝑉( 2
)= 𝑡𝑁
𝑡𝑁 𝑦𝑁−𝑦0
𝑉( 2
)= 𝑡𝑁
𝑦𝑁−𝑦0
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 𝑡𝑁

𝑦𝑁−𝑦0
Therefore, 𝑉𝑎𝑣𝑒 = 𝑡𝑁
= 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑

II.Finding the velocity at midpoint

𝑦2−𝑦1
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 𝑡2−𝑡1
(1.0793𝑚)−(0𝑚)
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 22
( 60 𝑠)−(0𝑠)
(1.0793𝑚)
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 22
( 60 𝑠)

𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2. 943545𝑚/𝑠
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 = 2. 94m/s
 d. Percent difference

2
Method 1: 𝑔 = 9. 70𝑚/𝑠
2
Method 2: 𝑔 = 9. 59𝑚/𝑠
2
Expected value: 𝑔 = 9. 81𝑚/𝑠

𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙−𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑑
Percentage difference = ( 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑒𝑑
) × 100

I.Method 1’s percent difference

(9.70)−(9.81)
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ( (9.81)
) × 100
(−0.11)
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ( 9.81 ) × 100
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =− 1. 12130479%
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =− 1. 12%

II.Method 2’s percent difference

(9.59)−(9.81)
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ( (9.81)
) × 100
(−0.22)
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = ( 9.81
)× 100
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =− 2. 24260958%
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =− 2. 24%

4.Discussion

I. Values of g

Value of g Percentage difference

Method 1 9. 70𝑚/𝑠
2 − 1. 12%

Method 2 9. 59𝑚/𝑠
2 − 2. 24%
 II. Values of 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑

Value of 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑

Method 1 2. 94𝑚/𝑠

Method 3 2. 94𝑚/𝑠

III. Values of 𝑉0

Value of 𝑉0

Method 1 1. 16𝑚/𝑠

Method 2 1. 11𝑚/𝑠

The value of gravitational acceleration calculated in Method 1 is more accurate

than Method 2. Method 1 yields a percentage difference of -1.12% whereas Method 2 has
a percentage difference of -2.24%. Method 1 may be more accurate because it directly
uses the positions and times obtained from the results of the experiment, which optimises
the fit over the entire dataset, but Method 2 takes the average velocity, resulting in a less
accurate graph overall. For example, in Method 2, 𝑡2 would have a value of average
velocity over a time interval, rather than the instantaneous velocity at 𝑡2, so it is creating
an assumption which leads to more errors. This also causes the velocity at each point to
be lower than expected, because the average velocity at any time t would be lower than
its actual value of velocity. Therefore, this is a systematic error because it leads to an
underestimate of the velocities in Method 2, and therefore its value of gravitational
acceleration, hence the result being lower than the expected value of g.

Moving on, the values of the midpoint velocity were both similar, with the value
of 2. 94𝑚/𝑠 for each. In Method 1, this velocity was taken by deriving from the
position-time equation, which proves that the equation of best fit, as a product of each
piece of data from the experiment was accurate. On the other hand, Method 3 also
produced a similar result by using the average velocity of the whole function. This means
that the acceleration or the rate of change of velocity recorded from the experiment was
relatively constant, which is the supposed case, proving the results to be accurate.

Furthermore, the values of 𝑉0 for Method 1 and 2 are 1. 16𝑚/𝑠 and 1. 11𝑚/𝑠
respectively. Method 1’s value can be taken as the more accurate value as Method 1
directly correlates the initial velocity to the position-time graph by yielding the equation
1 2
in the form of 𝑦(𝑡) = 𝑦0 + 𝑉0𝑡 + 2
𝑔𝑡 . Method 2, on the other hand, assumes that the
time at each point is equal to the average value of velocity over the time interval of the
corresponding time, which yields a less accurate prediction of the initial velocity. As
mentioned before, this is a systematic error as each value of velocity at each point is an
underestimate due to it being an average velocity rather than instantaneous velocity.

Overall, the experiment was successful in producing consistent and accurate

results, with 𝑉0 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑑 of each method being very similar, and both experimental
values of g having less than a 3% error. However, there still was space for error. One
systematic error involved in this experiment is air resistance. In this experiment, air
resistance was not taken into account, leading to the values of gravitational acceleration
to be underestimated. Furthermore, the bob may not have fallen in a perfectly straight
vertical line downwards, as the sparks on the sheet of paper obtained from the experiment
were not all in the same line. This also results in a systematic error as the swaying of the
bob can only result in a smaller displacement in the vertical axis, leading to an
underestimate of each position in the data set. In addition to that, there are random errors
due to human errors, such as inaccuracy of measuring the position of the sparks on the
paper, this could result in an overestimate or underestimate of distance at each time n.

Lastly, suggestions to improve the experiment could be taking into account the
coordinates or the specific location on Earth. This is because the gravitational
acceleration is smaller at the equator compared to the poles, leading to a variation of true
values of g at different places. Furthermore, the free fall method could be altered such
that the bob is isolated in terms of horizontal movement to ensure it falls directly
downwards. Most importantly, each and every force acting on the bob should be taken
into account – such as air resistance, to obtain a more accurate spread of data points,
hence more accurate results.