Finding the Acceleration of Gravity

through Displacement and Time

Rationale
The purpose of this experiment is to investigate the acceleration of gravity through motion graphs
created by measuring the time it takes for a ball to drop from specific heights. This was created from the
original experiment; its purpose was to discover the relationship between the time and displacement in
order to find the acceleration of gravity. The ball is expected to take a longer time to hit the ground with
a larger height. Gravitational attraction is a constantly applied force and becomes stronger the closer two
objects are together. Due to this, dropping a ball would cause it to accelerate toward the ground.
(Nordtvedt, n.d.) The original experiment was expected to follow the theoretical relationship of:

1
s=ut+ a t 2
2

Where u is the initial velocity, t is the time it takes for the ball to hit the ground, s is the distance
between where the ball is dropped and the ground, a is the acceleration of the ball, gravity. Since the
ball is being dropped from a stationary position, u is 0, simplifying this equation to:

1 2
s= a t
2

The results derived from the original experiment roughly follow the theoretical relationship. The plotted
points deviated from the theoretical trend-line significantly. The line of best fit intersects the y axis at -
0.45 and the line has an R2 value of 0.87 and the results have low percentage uncertainty ranging from
7.81% - 9.64%. The low R2 paired with the low uncertainty suggests that the experiment was invalid.
The most likely factor is the experiment being conducted outdoors where theres a lot of wind and
varying air pressure.

The new experiment aims to recreate the experiment in a more controlled environment to increase
reliability and validity. The main modification to the original experiment will be the refinement of
performing the experiment indoors. This will alleviate wind and make the experiment more valid and
reliable.

The independent variable of the new experiment is the drop height and the dependent variable is time.
Displacement will be graphed against time squared. This is theoretically expected to produce a linear
relationship as seen here:

2 2s
t =
a
2
t ∝s
∴ t ∝√ s

The gradient is
√ 2 . The acceleration of gravity will be determined by the following equation:
a
 2s
a=
t2

This will be calculated for every height and averaged.

This leads to the following research question being developed:

Modifications

Original Method
The original method was performed by measuring the distance between the ball and ground and timing
the time it takes to hit the ground with a stopwatch with 3 trials and 5 different heights.
VARIABLE METHODOLOGY
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE — DROP The original experimental method consisted of
HEIGHT dropping the ball from five different heights:
1.5m, 2.3m, 3m, 3.57m, 4.6m.
DEPENDANT VARIABLE — TIME Three trials were performed per height for the
original experiment. The trials were conducted by
starting a stopwatch when the ball started
dropping and stopping it when it hit the ground.
CONTROLLED — BALL The same ball was used in every trial.

Extensions
- More heights, a larger sample size allows for an easier identification of the relationship and
trend and a better analysis of uncertainty. This fixes the limitation in the original experiment
where no trend could be identified from the data.

Refinements
- Performing the experiment indoors. This is to reduce wind which could apply unbalanced forces
to the ball and increase uncertainty in the experiment. This refinement increases reliability. This
fixes the problem of the high uncertainty and varied results in the original experiment.
- Recording the ball drop with a camera instead of a stopwatch. This eliminates the uncertainty
behind human error and increases reliability. This was done to fix the problem of high
uncertainty in the original experiment.
- More trials, this increases the reliability due to the larger sample size involved. It also allows for
easier identification of outliers. The original experiment had too few trials to identify outliers
which led to its invalid and unreliable results. This refinement fixes this.

2
Methodology
VARIABLE METHODOLOGY
INDEPENDENT VARIABLE — DROP The original experimental method consisted of
HEIGHT dropping the ball from seven different heights:
1m, 1.5m, 2m, 2.5m, 3m, 3.5m, 4m.
DEPENDANT VARIABLE — TIME Five trials were performed per height for the
original experiment. The time was recorded using
a video camera to view the time between the
frame of when the ball was dropped and the
frame of when it hit the ground.
CONTROLLED — WIND, BALL The same ball was used in every trial. The
experiment was conducted indoors to alleviate
wind.

Constants/Assumptions
- The experiment was created with the assumption that there was no drag. Repeating this
experiment over larger distances will depict a non-linear graph. This assumption mildly
decreases the validity of the experiment.

Risk Assessment
RISK LIKELIHOOD CONSEQUENCE MITIGATION REACTIVE
STRATEGY STRATEGY
TRIPPING Medium Minor blunt Surround where the Help affected
ON THE trauma from object will land with people up and
BALL falling objects that will prevent it treat them based
from rolling away. on their injuries.
GETTING Low Minor blunt Check for people Treat affected
HIT BY trauma underneath the ball and people based on
THE only drop it once the their injuries.
BALL landing area is clear.
TRIPPING Low Minor blunt Warn incoming people to Help affected
ON THE trauma from tread carefully around the people up and
TAPE falling tape measure. treat them based
MEASURE on their injuries.
CHOKING Low Minor choking Warn incoming people to Lengthen tape
ON THE hazard tread carefully around the measure and
TAPE tape measure. bring it closer to
MEASURE affected people to
eliminate tension.
Then untie the
tape and treat
accordingly.

3
Raw Data
Displacement Time (±0.01 seconds)
(±0.005 metres) 1 2 3 4 5
4.000 0.86 0.87 0.91 1.00 0.92
3.500 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.80 0.83
3.000 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.70 0.77
2.500 0.70 0.68 0.73 0.68 0.66
2.000 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.60
1.500 0.56 0.53 0.49 0.53 0.55
1.000 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.42

Processed Data
Displacement Time (±0.01 seconds) Uncertainty (±) % Error
(±0.005 metres) 1 2 3 4 5 Average Absolute Percentage
4.000 0.86 0.87 0.91 1.00 0.92 0.91 0.07 7.68% 0.99%
3.500 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.80 0.83 0.81 0.02 2.46% 3.87%
3.000 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.70 0.77 0.74 0.04 4.73% 5.38%
2.500 0.70 0.68 0.73 0.68 0.66 0.69 0.04 5.07% 3.35%
2.000 0.60 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.62 0.02 2.44% 3.53%
1.500 0.56 0.53 0.49 0.53 0.55 0.53 0.04 6.58% 3.80%
1.000 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.42 0.45 0.03 6.70% 0.78%

4
Sample Calculations
Formula Sample Calculation (4m displacement)
∑x 0.86+0.87+ 0.91+ 1+ 0.92
Average=
n 5
¿ 0.91
max−min 1−0.86
Absolute Uncertainty=± ±
2 2
¿ ± 0.07
Absolute Uncertainty 0.07
Percentage Uncertainty=
Average 0.91
¿ 7.68 %
Percentage Error=¿ Average−Theoretical∨ ¿ ¿ |0.91−0.90|
Theoretical 0.90
¿ 0.99 %
Time Theoretical Value=
√ 2s
9.81 √ 2∗4
9.81
¿ 0.90
y 1− y 2 0.49−0.99
Gradient= =0.5
x 1−x 2 1.01−2.01
YIntercept= y−Gradient∗x 0.91−0.47∗2=0.03
MaximumGradient + Minimum Gradient 0.5+0.42
Theoretical Gradient= =0.46
2 2
Maximum Gradient−Minimum Gradient 0.5−0.42
Gradient Uncertainty = =0.08
2 2
2s 2∗4
Gravity= 2 2
=9.66
t 0.91

Analysis

5
Graph 1

Square Root of Drop Height Against Time

1
f(x) = 0.586531986531986 x − 0.179797979797979
0.8 f(x) = 0.446864710697885 x − 0.0123437686991994
Time (seconds)

R² = 0.988606940493426
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2

Square Root of Displacement (metres)

Graph 1 demonstrates a linear relationship between the square root of displacement and time. This
follows the theoretical relationship of t ∝ √ s . Graph 1s high R2 value of 0.9886 indicates this linear
correlation and high precision. The linear equation with uncertainty calculated from the maximum and
minimum lines is t=(0.4652± 0.1213) √ s−(0.0178 ± 0.162) . The theoretical gradient is

√ 2
9.81
=0.4515, this fits within the bounds of the slopes uncertainty making this valid. The regression
model equation intercepts the y-axis at (0, -0.0123). Logically, 0 displacement should result in 0 seconds
of time, meaning that the model should intercept the y-intercept at (0, 0). The theoretical c value of 0 fits
within the bounds of uncertainty in the derived equation contributing to validity. The error bars also fit
within the maximum and minimum lines showing high precision. The percentage uncertainties vary, and
no possible trend can be identified between them.

Limitations of Evidence
The measuring tape used has a range of 1mm and the camera has a range of 0.008 seconds. The tools
used were fairly precise and barely accounted for any uncertainty. The experiment focused on a small
range by performing the experiment indoors and using the same ball. The assumption that there was no
drag was an appropriate assumption. The assumption barely affects the experiment due to the small sizes
involved. However, the assumption would greatly affect the experiment over large displacements and
show a non linear trend.

Evaluation

Reliability
The theoretical results are all shown within the uncertainty bounds of the data points except for the
second last data point at 3.5m. This shows that the model is valid. The one data point is possibly an

6
anomaly, including the points next to it. All points clearly fit the trend line except for 3m, 3.5m and 4m.
However, 4m being close to the theoretical data point and the abundance of points that don’t fit the
graph discredits the possibility of them being anomalies.

Calculating the theoretical percentage uncertainty of the results of the camera shows a range from 0.88%
to 1.78%. This is significantly lower than the actual percentage uncertainty ranging from 2.44% to
7.68%. This suggests that there are other uncertainties that need to be considered. One notable
possibility is the ball being dropped by hand; the hand would apply friction and uneven forces to the ball
which would hinder the reliability of the results. Another culprit of uncertainty is parallax error.

Validity
All the theoretical results except for the point at 1.87m fit within the results error bars. The theoretical
gradient and c value fit within the bounds of the derived results. Percentage error ranges from 0.78% to
5.38%. The derived value of gravity is 10.40 with a percentage error of 6.01%. These facts show that the
experiment has high validity; however, one of the theoretical results not fitting within the error bars of
the derived results show that there are possible factors that may have altered the validity of the
experiment.

One possible error is the experiments assumption that there is no drag; if drag had been excluded from
the calculations, then the trend-line would have a larger gradient than the theoretical gradient because
the air friction would slow the balls descent and increase time. Instead, the derived gradient is smaller,
suggesting more systematic errors. Another possibility is that the value of gravity is significantly
different in the conducted location.

Suggested Extensions
- Due to the well-defined curve in the last 3 data points, collecting more data could result in a
much clearer identification of trends. Using 14 experiments would result in data points in
between those last 3 which could show if there is a definite curve.
- Using different sized balls to observe the effects of drag could allow for more accurate readings
of gravity because a relationship can be derived from surface area and drag so that the balls
friction can be accurately calculated and removed from the equation.
- Multiple locations

Suggested Improvements
- Recording at a higher frame rate. This experiment recorded at 60 frames per second, recording
at a higher frame rate would reduce the uncertainty of the camera.
- Using a smooth metal ball, metal is less subservient to deformation compared to the tennis ball.
The surface is also smoother which could allow for the drag equation to be implemented into
calculations of the theoretical data. The tennis ball had hairs rather than a rough surface. This
would greatly reduce the uncertainties of ball surface area and friction.
- Dropping using a sliding board instead of a hand would eliminate the uncertainties of parallax
error and dropping the ball by hand. The ball will sit near the edge of the board, the board will
then slide away from the ball and drop them from a more exact height.

7
Conclusion
The aim of this experiment was to improve the original experiment in terms of reliability and validity.
The research question was: “What is the relationship between drop height of a tennis ball and the time it
takes for the ball to land when wind, air pressure and the ball are controlled?” The relationship
calculated from the results is t=( 0.4652 ± 0.1213 ) √ s− ( 0.0178± 0.162 ). The largest weakness of the
experimental methodology was dropping the ball by hand and the largest strength was recording the ball
drop. The best improvement for this experiment to further achieve the aim would be to use a sliding
board to drop the ball.

References
Nordtvedt, K., n.d. gravity | Definition, Physics, & Facts. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at:
<https://www.britannica.com/science/gravity-physics> [Accessed 11 August 2022].