Relationship of Diameter and Mass of Plasticine Balls

In this lab you will only be evaluated on the Data Analysis and Conclusion criterion.

Research question
To what extent does increasing the mass of a plasticine ball affect the diameter of the ball?

Scientific Context
Density is a property of a material that can be calculated by finding the ratio of the mass and the volume.
This ratio is a fixed value that should remain constant as long as other factors that might affect the
density of the substance remain the same, such as temperature. In this investigation, you will be
exploring the relationship between the mass of a sphere and the diameter of a sphere. This relationship
is shown below mathematically.

Where V is the volume, d is the diameter, m is the mass, and 𝝆 is the density of the plasticine

Hypothesis
The relationship between the mass and diameter cubed of plasticine balls is directly proportional. This
means that the diameter will increase with the mass. When the mass is doubled, the diameter cubed of
the ball will also double. The resulting relationship should make a straight-line graph that intercepts the
origin. It is expected that the 5.00g plasticine ball will have the smallest diameter and the 30.00g
plasticine ball will have the largest diameter. The density of the plasticine which will be calculated from
the slope of the processed data is expected to be 1.50 g cm-3.
Method
Materials: digital scale, plasticine, and calipers

Perform the following procedure to collect your data:

1) Obtain approximately 125.00g of plasticine

2) Using the scale, measure out 5 lumps of plasticine. Each lump of plasticine should have a mass of
5g.
3) Roll the lump of plasticine you have measured into a ball and measure its diameter.
4) Record your results in a table.
5) Repeat this procedure for 10.00, 15.00, 20.00, 25.00g, and 30.00g of plasticine.
Raw Data
Qualitative Raw Data
During our experiment, we had to craft the plasticine into spheres ourselves which resulted in a
deficient spherical shape, this caused the measurements of the diameter to have various results which
were ultimately minor, and this could produce potential errors that result in inaccurate data if major.
However, there could be multiple factors that have affected the different data points, for example
throughout the measuring process the calipers must be gently closed in order to get accurate
measurements, this could adjust the final diameter of the ball if the force of the calipers are too strong
when closed.

Raw Data
Table 1. Raw Data Table of the Diameter and Mass of a Plasticine Sphere.

Diameter
Mass d / mm Average of Absolute
m/g Δd ± 0.01 Diameter Uncertainty
Δm ± 0.1 𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 / mm of Diameter
Δ𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔/mm
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

5.0 17.68 18.24 18.04 17.76 18.20 17.98 0.28

10.0 22.28 22.36 22.46 22.24 22.40 22.35 0.11

15.0 26.08 26.18 26.52 26.40 25.78 26.19 0.37

20.0 27.72 28.38 27.60 28.04 27.88 27.92 0.39

25.0 30.62 30.70 30.68 30.98 30.82 30.76 0.18

30.0 32.46 33.04 32.66 32.48 32.12 32.55 0.46

 Figure 1. Scatter Chart of the Relationship of the Mass vs Average Diameter of a Plasticine Sphere.
Author’s Own Work. 2024

Processed Data

Table 2. Processed Data Table of the Diameter vs Mass of the Spherical Balls. Author’s Own Work. 2024

Fractional Fractional
Mass Average Average Absolute Absolute
Uncertainty Uncertainty
m/g Diameter Diameter³ Uncertainty Uncertainty 3
Δ𝐷 Δ𝐷
Δm ± 0.1 𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 / mm 3
𝑑 / mm △𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 / mm 𝐷
3
of △𝑑 / mm³ 𝐷
3

5.0 17.98 5820 0.28 0.016 270 0.047

10.0 22.35 11160 0.11 0.0049 170 0.015
15.0 26.19 17970 0.37 0.015 760 0.042
20.0 27.92 21770 0.39 0.014 910 0.042
25.0 30.76 29100 0.18 0.0059 510 0.018
30.0 32.55 34490 0.46 0.014 1460 0.042
 Figure 2. Scatter Chart Showing the Relationship between the Diameter³ of the Ball vs the Mass of the
Sphere. Author’s Own Work. 2024

Expected:

π(0.0015) 3
𝑚= 6
𝑑
3
𝑚 = 0. 0007853𝑑
Measured Slope:

3
𝑚 = 0. 0008672𝑑

Percentage Error:
0.0008672−0.0007853
0.0007853
× 100 = 10. 42%

Absolute Uncertainty:

Sample calculation; Raw Data (30g)

𝑚𝑎𝑥−𝑚𝑖𝑛
△𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 2
 33.04−32.12
△𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 2

△𝑑𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0. 46

Fractional Uncertainty:

Sample Calculation; Processed Data (30g)

Δ𝐷 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦
𝑓𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 𝐷
= 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
0.46
= 32.55

= 0. 014

Percentage Uncertainty; Processed Data (30g)

𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦
𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒
× 100%
0.46
32.55
× 100% = 1. 4%

Conclusion

The experiment looked at the relationship between a plasticine-molded ball's mass and diameter
cubed. The relationship between this ball's mass and its cubed diameter should be proportionate
according to its hypothesis. By evaluating the processed data, it was determined that the data partially
supports the hypothesis because it showed a trend of increasing mass and diameter cubed. Table 2
shows this relationship, showing proportionality in the doubling of the diameter cubed as a result of the
doubling of mass which supports the hypothesis. However, the hypothesis expected the fitted trendline
to perfectly go through the origin, this was incorrect, making the hypothesis partially unsupported by the
data. This relationship can be further supported as Figure 2 has a strong positive correlation between the
variables that can be seen in the graph through the use of the calculated correlation coefficient of
0.9984, a strong positive correlation is 0.5 to 1.0 which this coefficient is very close to a 1.

The raw data of the measurements of the sphere's mass and diameter were plotted on a scatter
graph in order to visualize the relationship between the two variables. Also, error bars were added in
order to represent the absolute uncertainty in diameter. A power function was chosen to model the data
due to the non-linearity that can be seen from the data points. However, this decision can be
π𝑝 3
mathematically supported as the processed data graph is represented in the form of 𝑚 = 6
𝑑 the
3
two variables that will be derived from this form 𝑚 α 𝑑 . This mathematical form can also be used to
represent the raw data graph, drawing out different values from Figure 1. The relationship between the
two variables, diameter, and mass, can be represented in the cubic root function. Through the use of
Logger Pro and the curve fit trend for the data, multiple values can be found in Figure 1, by using the
1
exponential function the values of 𝑎 = 10. 47 and 𝑏 = 0. 333 ≈ 3
can be observed through the
calculations made in Logger Pro which 𝑎 represents the proportionality constant, the relationship
between the mass and density.

However, the 𝑏 value represents the offset of the linear equation in Figure 2, in a perfectly
proportional relationship the 𝑏 value should be equal to 0 which explains the hypothesis. The expected
trendline should perfectly go through the origin, but the value is greater than 0 which suggests a
deviation from the proportionality, this could be caused by experimental errors such as the shaping of
the balls and measurements with the calipers.

𝑏
𝑦 = 𝑎𝑥

0.333
𝑑 = 10. 47𝑚

3 0.333 3
(𝑑) = (10. 47𝑚 )

3 0.999
𝑑 = 1148𝑚
3
𝑑 0.999
1148
≈𝑚

3 0.999
0. 000871𝑑 ≈ 𝑚

As the hypothesis states the relationship should be between the diameter cubed and the meter,
3
the data had to be converted in 𝑑 instead of 𝑑 in order to find the linear function that represents the
data and supports the data appropriately. Also, by doing so the slope of the processed data can be found
3
as the raw data is converted into diameter cubed. Converting this data into 𝑑 it accurately shows the
3
correlation between the variables, this value 0. 000871𝑑 is similar to the slope of my processed data as
it represents the same process. However, some deviations might occur due to the decimal places used in
this particular equation.

By analyzing various data points the data shows proportionality. This can be seen when the mass
of the plasticine ball was 5 grams, the average diameter cubed of this ball was to be 5816.46 mm³. By
doubling the mass to 10 grams which resulted in a diameter cubed of 11161.33 mm³, which
approximately doubled the initial value. This doubling pattern continues throughout the data set.
Increasing the mass to 20 grams, this is four times the initial mass and a diameter cubed of 21773.73
mm³, which is approximately 4 times the initial diameter cubed. This shows proportionality in the data as
each time the value doubles the diameter cubed doubles with. This can also be partially supported by
the percentage uncertainty, as the fractional uncertainties are roughly constant as there are some
deviations, despite these deviations, it still supports the proportionality.

However, the data is not accurate, this claim of inaccuracy can be supported by the error
percentage deriving from the expected value of 1.50 g cm-3. The error percentage of the data is 10. 42%,
this is calculated by using the measured value which in this case is the gradient of Figure 2 and the
expected value. Another variable that could be considered is the inconsistency of the percentage
uncertainty. By examining Table 2, it can be observed that the percentage uncertainty varies significantly,
for example between 0.015 and 0.047, showing that the data does not remain constant to the
proportionality between the diameter³ and the mass. This uncertainty can suggest that the data is not
accurate due to the varying error bars which are the uncertainty values, these error bars show how far
the actual value is from the expected value.

In the scientific context, the mass of the ball should be directly proportional to the diameter
cubed, which means that the ratio of the relation between the two variables should be constant as
explained before.

𝑚
3 = 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑠
𝑑

5𝑔
5816.46182𝑚𝑚
= 0. 00085963

10𝑔
11161.33101
= 0. 00089595

15𝑔
17968.25847
= 0. 00083481

20𝑔
21773.73275
= 0. 00091853

30𝑔
34493.16378
= 0. 00086973

However, the different gradients which are represented by the different ratios of the relationship
between the mass and the diameter cubed of the ball show a range from 0. 00083481 to
3
0. 00091853 𝑔/𝑚𝑚 . This range between the ratios is rather small but it questions the accuracy and
precision of the experiment indubitably, this small difference in ratios makes the experiment doubt the
scientific context of the ratios being a fixed constant. This could be caused due to the abnormalities in
the shape of the ball creating a varied density due to external factors, this could include the reshaping of
the balls, the measurements of the diameter can differ thus producing inaccurate and potential errors in
the data making it inaccurate
 The data collected from this experiment largely supports the hypothesis in proportionality that
the mass is to the diameter³ of the plasticine molded sphere. However, the data is not accurate, this can
be supported by the error percentage being 10.42% making it inaccurate and the inconsistent ratios
between the two variables question both the precision and accuracy of the data. The data still questions
areas of the hypothesis for example the trendline passing through the origin of (0,0), this doubts the
theory of proportionality, but this could be a matter of error in measurements and external factors.
Whilst the data might not be accurate, the data still supports the fact that the diameter cubed and mass
of the plasticine sphere correlate and are proportional showing a geometric trend. Roughly proving the
hypothesis true although there are some deviations from the expected data.
Rubric
Data Analysis Rubric
Conclusion Rubric