AP Physics

Lab Report #2

1D Kinematics
STUDENT 1, STUDENT 2, STUDENT 3
Purpose (S1 and S3): The physics concept that we are trying to test is to find the kinematics of a

rolling metallic ball. The practical task is to find the position and velocity of the metallic ball

during the duration of the ball rolling down the inclined ramp. One example of this process being

used in the real world is calculating how fast a bike will go down a hill.

Hypothesis (S1): We predicted that the ball will have an accelerating speed on the inclined

portion of the track, and a slightly decelerating speed on the horizontal track.

Procedure (S1, S2, S3):

The following resources were available:

-​ Steel ball

-​ Aluminum C-channel track

-​ Meter sticks

-​ Stopwatches (via smartphone)

-​ LoggerPro Software

1.​ We set up a ramp consisting of an initial incline followed by a horizontal track starting at

a height of 9cm. The inclined portion of the ramp was approximately 60cm long, and the

horizontal portion was approximately 40cm.

2.​ We set up a camera to record the experiment.

3.​ The metal ball was held at the start of the ramp and released with no initial velocity. The

ball continued through the duration of the ramp until it hit an object marking the end of

the measured track.

4.​ After recording the video, we imported it to Logger Pro.

graph and corresponding data table.

6.​ We then imported this data into Google Sheets, as it was an easier program to use.

7.​ We adjusted the data so that the exact point that the ball started moving was T0, to adjust

for the seconds missed when the ball wasn’t moving.

8.​ To avoid as much error as possible, we reused our data to split the graph into the inclined

and horizontal portion, instead of filming separate videos for each section.

9.​ We then used that data to make each section’s own position-time graphs.

10.​We linearized the position-time graphs of the total and inclined track (the position-time

graph of the horizontal track was already linearized, and as such could not be linearized

like the other two).

This is the information that we input from Logger Pro to find our information. Columns A, B,

and D were imported directly from Logger Pro (measured values), while Columns F, H, J, and K

contain information that was calculated based on the original data (Ultimately, we did not use the

data in Column J as it ended up not being relevant enough to our purpose).

Calculations Performed (S1): Columns F, H, J, and K were each attained through calculations,

and all serve a different purpose. Column F contains the time measurements we used, which start

at 0 instead of 0.4 like Column A. Because our video started before the ball was released, there

was a period of time where nothing happened. The function we used to fix this was F = A - 0.4.
Column H is similar to Column F in that it is an adjustment for error. Our smallest position data

point should have been 0, but it was approximately 0.07 instead. To fix this, we used the function

H = B - 0.07 (in the actual calculations, we used the longer number shown in Figure 3.1 instead

of 0.07). Column J shows the difference between position measurements in Column H. To find

this, we used the function J = Hn - Hn+1, where n is the row number. The data shown in Column J

helped recognize throughout a general pattern, that the difference between position

measurements was overall increasing during the inclined section and more or less consistent

during the horizontal section, but was in the end too small a measurement to be relied upon

because of how precise our original measurements were. Lastly, Column K is the time

measurements squared. This was calculated by the function K = F2. Column K’s data was used in

linearization and allowed us to turn the equation of a parabola (y = ax2) into that of a line (y = ax,

where x = time squared). The following are example calculations from each of the above

columns. (The second and third examples use rounded numbers, the actual analysis rounded to a

much farther decimal place).

-​ Fn = An - 0.4 where A11 = 0.7s -​ Jn = Hn - Hn+1 where H4 = 0.95m and

-​ F11 = 0.7 - 0.4 H5 = 0.94m

-​ F11 = 0.3s -​ J4 = 0.95 - 0.94

-​ J4 = 0.01m

-​ Hn = Bn - 0.07 where B4 = 1.02m -​ Kn = Fn2 where F8 = 0.2

-​ H4 = 1.02 - 0.07 -​ K8 = 0.22

-​ H4 = 0.05m -​ K8 = 0.04s

The following derivation will be mentioned later in the lab:

y/x (un-defined variables) → p/t2 (measurement variables) → m/s2 (units)

Our data in this report is organized by numerical categories and subcategories shown by a

decimal (e.g., Figure 3.1). Figures in the first category are position-time graphs, figures in the

second category are velocity-time graphs, and Figure 3.1 (the only one in the third category) is

an image of all our data.

Graph 1.1 - When looking at Graph 1.1, the line over the points represents the position of

the points to create a trendline that is based on all the points. The position of the points is also

compensated for error. We had to illustrate that the x-position ended at exactly 0. This graph also

illustrates the entire distance that the marble goes through throughout the entire track. The

curved trendline shows that the ball is traveling with an accelerating speed down the inclined

track. However, this trendline is not entirely accurate. Graph 1.1 really shows two separate

functions: the inclined track and the horizontal track. One trendline cannot be applied to two

functions. A more accurate trendline will be established in the following graphs.

Graph 1.2 - When looking at Graph 1.2, in comparison to Graph 1.1, the trendline is still

representing the path that the points made, but the graph shows only the incline portion of the

track. From this graph, you can see that the trendline stops at roughly 0.8 seconds signaling that

after this moment, the marble is on the horizontal track. During this graph, the marble is

increasing in velocity as it is rolling down the incline. This increase in velocity signals that the

ball will continue to gain velocity, but Graph 1.1 shows that there is a horizontal track preventing

the ball from endlessly increasing in velocity.

Graph 1.3 - When looking at Graph 1.3, in comparison to Graphs 1.1, the trendline

continues to represent the path of the points, but instead of following the inclined portion similar

to Graph 1.2, this graph follows the horizontal track. This graph illustrates that the ball is
decreasing in its value for the position at a constant rate/ velocity. While the ball is technically

under the effect of gravity, and therefore friction against the track, the timeframe studied is so

small that the ball is virtually unaffected by these factors. Because of this assumption that

nothing is impeding nor aiding the ball’s motion, it will move continuously until it reaches the

end of the track (this is the same concept addressed by Sir Isaac Newton’s First Law of Motion).

The slope of this graph shows the velocity of the ball on this section of track. The constant

velocity that the ball experienced was -0.993 m/s.

Graph 2.1 - When looking at Graph 2.1, the graph is linearized to account for the curve

the ball has throughout the entire Graph 1.1. When looking at Graph 1.1, the trendline illustrates

the right path the marble will take at every given point. The trendline in Graph 1.1 shows the

velocity. If we had the velocity on one of the axes, with time on the other, the trendline would

show acceleration. To recap, velocity is measured in m/s, time in s, acceleration in m/s2, and

position in m. Using the derivation that was done in our Calculations section, it can be

determined that the slope of a trendline for a linearized position-time graph will be the rate of

acceleration of the ball. Similar to Graph 1.1, the trendline for this graph is not very accurate. It

once again takes two functions as one, something that cannot be done. However, this

linearization is still important as it exemplifies the linearized relationship that will be used in the

next graph.

Graph 2.2 - Graph 2.2 shows the linearization of Graph 1.2. The slope in this graph

represents the rate of acceleration that the ball experienced during the inclined portion of the

track, which was -0.701. Negative acceleration typically means deceleration, but here it is

negative simply because of the direction the ball was going based on where we filmed it from.
 Note: There is no linearization for Graph 1.3 because it is already a linear function; it

cannot be linearized again.

Error Analysis (S1, S2, S3):

An error with our data was that the ball started a few seconds without moving resulting in the

graph showing the position's first point being at a few tenths of a second after zero. This messed

with our data showing that at an initial time of 0 seconds, the ball was at the same position after a

few tenths of a second. To adjust for this we subtracted the time’s initial start to figure out how

much time was wasted. We also noticed that the position of the graph after the ball stopped in

motion was not at 0 on the x-axis. This meant that we had to adjust the position to figure out

what the starting position was relating to the difference in the final position. There were other

slight numerical inaccuracies in the data that created the graphs, likely due to slightly erroneous

measurements in the Logger Pro frame-by-frame movement tracker. For example, while the

distance between each position measurement should be continually increasing on the inclined

portion of the track, some measurements show a decrease. To fix some of the errors that the

group made, we can consistently better measure the exact point on Logger Pro, where the ball

was at each frame. We can use the end of the ball as a reference for each frame by frame click.

Another way to fix the problem with the initial time was to correctly cut out the portion of the

video where the marble was not moving. This would result in the marble starting to gain velocity

at exactly 0 seconds instead of starting to gain velocity at roughly 0.4 seconds. Another error is

that we could not account for the friction the ball felt while on the horizontal track. As shown in

our data the ball experienced a constant velocity but if the track had been longer, we would have

seen the effects of gravity and friction on the velocity of the ball. This lack of friction shows us
that the ball goes at a constant velocity rather than a constant slight deceleration as we

hypothesized. The best way to account for this is to use a longer track or run a longer experiment

to demonstrate the effects of friction.

Conclusion (S1 and S2): Our hypothesis was correct in a practical sense, but incorrect based

solely on the data we collected. We initially hypothesized that the ball would experience constant

acceleration on the inclined portion of the track and constant deceleration on the horizontal

portion of the track. We also hypothesized that the marble’s velocity and acceleration would

decrease when rolling across the horizontal track. We ended up concluding that the ball

decreased at a constant velocity after the inclined portion of the track. Our prediction for the

inclined section was entirely correct, the graphs reflect a constant acceleration at a rate of 0.701

m/s2. However, based on our data, the ball experienced constant velocity, not constant

deceleration on the horizontal section. The only thing that would slow down the ball was friction,

an effect of gravity pushing the ball against the track. This is true, but the timeframe in which we

conducted our experiment was too short for the effects of friction to be apparent. If the track had

gone on forever (or even a finite but longer distance), the ball would have been decelerating, so,

in that way, our hypothesis was correct. But our hypothesis was not a prediction for that

situation, it was a prediction for this experiment, in which the ball experienced constant velocity

on the horizontal track, so that part of our hypothesis was incorrect.

​ These are our final overall conclusions (the numbers presented have been made positive,

as direction is not important to the results of this experiment): the ball experienced two types of

motion over the course of the entire track. During the inclined section, the ball experienced a
constant acceleration of 0.701 m/s2. During the horizontal section, the ball experienced a

constant velocity of 0.993 m/s.