PHYS1P – Physics Lab 1
Abdulqadir Aziz Singapore Wala
081795D15
03/09/08
E3 – A Ball Rolling Down an Inclined Plane
Introduction
A ball is released from the perimeter of an imaginary vertical circle (See Figure 1, Lab Manual E3) and
allowed to roll down along an incline towards the centre of the circle, from where the incline
becomes horizontal. The incline is hinged at this point and so the angle of inclination is adjustable for
the experiment. One of the main aims of this experiment is to determine the optimal angle at which
the time taken for the ball to roll across the horizontal track is shortest.
Objectives
The objective of the experiment is to determine the angle at which the time taken for the ball to
travel across the horizontal track would be least. Also, the controversial topic of discarding data will
be addressed through the use of Chauvenet’s Criterion.
Background
The height of the release of the ball is determined by the following formula:
Height=L sinθ
Where L is the length of the incline and θ is the angle of elevation of the incline.
With the height of release of the ball, the acceleration of the ball as it rolls down the incline, and its
velocity as it rolls along the horizontal track can be calculated.
Chauvenet’s Criterion
Chauvenet’s Criterion is a method of testing if a suspicious measurement from a set of data may be
discarded. It is based on the Normal Distribution, as are other methods to eliminate suspect data
such as Pierce’s Criterion and Grubb’s Test. Chauvenet’s Criterion is employed under the assumption
that the data collected fits the Normal Distribution. For full details on the calculations involved, see
Appendix 1 of Lab Manual E3.
Normal Error Integral
The Normal Error Integral is the definite integral of the Normal Distribution Function from −∞ to ∞.
For full details on the calculations involved, see Appendix 2 of Lab Manual E3.
Methods and Procedures
The setup comprises of an inclined track with adjustable slope, a horizontal track with skirting, a
retort stand, 1” ball bearings, a meter rule, a protractor, a stopwatch, photogates with support
stands and a smart timer.
Part I
This part involves taking 20 measurements of the time taken for the ball to roll down the incline to
the end of the horizontal track where the ball hits a wooden block. The measurements are taken
using a stopwatch, so there will be high random error and also high probability of anomalous results.
Any suspicious results are tested with Chauvenet’s Criterion before determining whether to discard
the data.
See Lab manual E3 for detailed setup and explanation of the experiment.
Part II
This part involves determining the optimum angle at which the velocity of the ball along the
horizontal track is highest (meaning time taken to travel along the track is lowest). 5 readings for the
time taken to travel across the horizontal track are taken each for 15 different angles between 15°
and 50° using a pair of photogates with a smart timer for higher precision and accuracy. Similar to
the setup in Part I, the first photogate is placed at the point where the track becomes horizontal, and
the second is placed 1.000m from the first. This is to reduce the error due to measuring the distance
between the photogates as the largest rule available was the metre rule.
See Lab manual E3 for detailed setup and explanation of the experiment.
Results and Discussion
After conducting Part I of the experiment, 20 measurements were obtained, as shown below in
Table 1.
Table showing 20
Table 1 measurements using
stopwatch
x/s
1.46 1.35
1.25 1.00
1.53 1.34
1.43 1.44
1.4 1.41
1.35 1.47
1.09 1.31
1.37 1.22
1.37 1.41
1.37 1.53
x́ 1.355
σx 0.132764
From the set of measurements, two suspicious measurements were found from this set of data,
which are highlighted. Chauvenet’s Cirterion will have to be employed in order to determine
whether the data should be discarded.
First, the number of standard deviations each suspicious measurement differs from the mean will
have to be calculated:
t |x sus− x́|
sus=
σ
Where tsus is the number of standard deviations the suspicious measurement differs from the mean.
We can find the probability that a measurement will differ from the mean by t susσ or more, using the
equation:
Probablilty (outside tsusσ) = 1 – Probability (within tsusσ)
The number of measurements n expected to deviate by t susσ is calculated using the equation:
n = N x Probability (outside tsusσ)
Where N is the total number of measurements.
For the suspicious measurement x=1.00, we have:
t |1.00−1.355|
sus=
0.132764
= 2.673915
≈ 2.7 (2 significant figures)
Comparing this value to Table A of Appendix 2 of Lab Manual E3, we can find the probability a
measurement would differ from the mean by 2.7σ or more:
Probability (outside 2.7σ) = 1 – Probability within 2.7σ
= 1 – 0.9931
= 0.0069
The number of measurements expected to deviate by this 2.7σ is:
n = 20 x 0.0069
= 0.138
Since only 0.138 measurements out of 20 are expected to deviate from the mean by 2.7 σ and
0.138<0.5, as set by Chauvenet’s Criterion, this measurement may be deemed anomalous and
should not be considered for rejection.
For the suspicious measurement x=1.09, we have:
t |1.09−1.355|
sus=
0.132764
= 1.996021
≈ 2.0 (2 significant figures)
Comparing this value to Table A of Appendix 2 of Lab Manual E3, we can find the probability a
measurement would differ from the mean by 2.7σ or more:
Probability (outside 2.7σ) = 1 – Probability within 2.7σ
= 1 – 0.9643
= 0.0357
The number of measurements expected to deviate by this 2.7σ is:
n = 20 x 0.0357
= 0.714
Since 0.714 measurements out of 20 are expected to deviate from the mean by 2.0σ and 0.714>0.5,
as set by Chauvenet’s Criterion, this measurement may be significant and should not be considered
for rejection.
Using Chauvenet’s Criterion, we are able to discard x=1.00. From the new set of data, we can
calculate a new mean and standard deviation for the data. The new x́ = 1.373 and the new σ =
0.105998. As expected, while the mean only changes a little, the change in the standard deviation is
significant.
After conducting Part II of the experiment, then results were tabulated in Table 2 below.
Table of measurements of time taken to travel along horizontal
Table 2
track, t against angle of inclination θ
θ/° t1/s t2/s t3/s t4/s t5/s t́/ s σ/s
10 1.5652 1.5924 1.5623 1.5656 1.5579 1.56868 0.013612
13 1.271 1.2776 1.2715 1.2751 1.2766 1.27436 0.00298
15 1.2297 1.2357 1.2276 1.2264 1.2286 1.2296 0.003621
18 1.0826 1.083 1.0822 1.0827 1.0775 1.0816 0.00231
20 1.0099 1.0089 1.0103 1.0113 1.0095 1.00998 0.000901
23 0.9914 0.9876 0.9911 0.9921 0.9924 0.99092 0.001928
25 0.9434 0.9371 0.9417 0.9382 0.9384 0.93976 0.002663
28 0.9087 0.909 0.9115 0.9125 0.92 0.91234 0.004577
30 0.8939 0.8881 0.8872 0.8875 0.8947 0.89028 0.003695
33 0.8848 0.8906 0.8891 0.8833 0.8874 0.88704 0.003002
35 0.8937 0.8971 0.8924 0.8888 0.8869 0.89178 0.004033
38 0.9013 0.9052 0.8949 0.8993 0.8967 0.89948 0.004024
40 0.9054 0.9098 0.9049 0.9162 0.9049 0.90824 0.004903
43 0.9421 0.9161 0.9126 0.9188 0.9124 0.9204 0.012418
45 0.9154 0.9201 0.9299 0.9168 0.9232 0.92108 0.005784
48 0.9686 0.9766 0.9696 0.9679 0.9689 0.97032 0.003563
From these results, a graph of travel time t against angle of inclination θ was plotted, as shown in
Figure 1 below.
Graph of t/s against θ/°
1.58
1.54
1.5
1.46
1.42
1.38
1.34
1.3
1.26 Curve
1.22
1.18
1.14
1.1
1.06
1.02
0.98
0.94
0.9
0.86
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Figure 1: Graph of t/s against θ/°
From the graph, we obtain that the minimum time of travel occurs at θ=33°. θ/°
Theoretically, the relationship between the final velocity V of the ball before it reaches the
horizontal track, acceleration due to gravity g and length of the incline L is:
V 2=2 gLsin θ
Therefore, we can calculate V using:
V = √2 gLsin θ
To find the velocity of the ball along the horizontal track, we find the horizontal component of V:
V x =cos θ × √ 2 gL sin θ
We can obtain the stationary point of V x by finding its derivative with respect to θ and equating it to
0:
dV x
=0
dθ
3
cos ❑2θ
( √ 2 gL )(2 √ sinθ )
−( √2 gL ) ( sin θ ) 2 =0
3
cos ❑2θ
( √ 2 gL )(2 √ sinθ )
=( √2 gL ) ( sin θ ) 2
1
sin ❑2θ= cos ❑2θ
2
1 1
sin ❑2θ= − sin ❑2θ
2 2
1
sin θ=
√3
θ=35.3°
To check if this value of θ corresponds to a maximum or minimum value of V x, we find the value of
the derivative of Vx for values of θ immediately before and after 35.3, as shown in Table 3 below.
dV x
Table 3 Table showing values of
dθ
= 35.2 = 35.3 = 35.4
dV x 0.0021 0 -0.0044
dθ
Graphical
representation
As can be seen from Table 3, the value of V x is a maximum at θ=35.3° and this would correspond to a
minimum time take to travel across the horizontal track.
The time taken to travel across the horizontal track can be calculated at follows:
s
t= 3
2
cos θ
(
( √ 2 gL ) ❑
2 √sin θ )
−( √ 2 gL ) ( sin θ ) 2
Where s is the length of the horizontal track, in this case, 1.000m
Taking g=9.81ms-2 and L=0.283m, we can obtain the theoretical values of t, as tabulated in Table 4
below.
Table of
ttheo/s
Table 4
against
angle θ/°
θ/° ttheo/s
10 1.034119
13 0.91831
15 0.863605
18 0.802712
20 0.772228
23 0.737551
25 0.72029
28 0.701484
30 0.693013
33 0.685664
35 0.684065
38 0.686363
40 0.690987
43 0.702649
45 0.713723
48 0.735715
Using the values from Table 4, we can overlay the graph of the theoretical values of t onto the graph
in Figure 1 to obtain a new graph, shown in Figure 2 below.
Graph of t/s against θ/°
1.58
1.54
1.5
1.46
1.42
1.38
1.34
1.3
1.26
1.22
1.18 Experimental
1.14 Theoretical
1.1
1.06
1.02
0.98
0.94
0.9
0.86
0.82
0.78
0.74
0.7
0.66
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50
Figure 2: Graph of t/s against θ/°, showing both experimental and theoretical values
As can be seen from Figure 2, all the theoretical values for the time taken to travel across the
horizontal track are obviously much smaller than the experimental values. This is because the
theoretical calculations assume an ideal situation, which does not exist in this experiment. Friction
and air resistance result in a loss of heat energy, and energy is also lost as sound energy when the
ball hits the horizontal track. This difference between the theoretical and experimental values can be
demonstrated with the following equations based on the law of conservation of energy:
Theoretically, potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the ball:
mgh = 0.5mV2
Experimentally, some of this energy is lost as other forms of energy as well:
mgh = 0.5mV2 + E
Where m is the mass of the ball, g is the acceleration due to gravity, h is the height of the ball, and E
represents the energy lost as other forms.
Given that height of the incline = Lsinθ,
mgLsin θ−E=0.5 mV 2
2E
2 gL sin θ− =V 2
m
2E
√
V = 2 gLsin θ−
m
From here, we can find the horizontal component in order to find its velocity along the horizontal
track:
2E
√
V x =cos θ 2 gL sin θ−
m
This is smaller than the theoretical value of v x .
Another reason for the greater amount of time taken is that the frictional and air resistance forces
result in a deceleration of the ball, so the velocity v x of the ball along the horizontal track is not
constant, as predicted by the theoretical calculations, but always decreasing. This also results in the
ball taking a longer time than expected to move along the horizontal track.
It is also observed that the angle that gives the smallest travel time across the horizontal track is
lower for the experimental data, at about 33°, compared to the theoretical, in which the smallest
travelling time occurs at 35.3°. This is a direct result of the above equation. Equating its derivative to
0, we have:
dV x
=0
dθ
cos ❑2θ 2E
2E √
−sin θ 2 gLsin θ−
m
=0
√
2 2 gL sin θ−
m
2
gLcos ❑θ 2E
2E √
=sin θ 2 gL sinθ−
m
√ 2 gLsin θ−
m
2
2 2E
gLcos ❑ θ=2 gLsin θ− sinθ
❑ m
2
2E
3 gLsin θ− sin θ−gL=0
❑ m
This will give us a value for sin θ < 1/√3 therefore θ < 35.3°.
However, it is also observed that the shapes of both curves are similar. This shows that the trends
are similar, so the energy lost as other forms is relatively constant, except for the values at 10° at
which the difference in time taken was the greatest. This is probably due to greater effect of
frictional forces as the ball is moving at a smaller velocity, so it faces the frictional and air resistance
forces for a greater amount of time.
Conclusion
In this experiment, the objectives of addressing Chauvenet’s Criterion with respect to the rejection
of suspicious data and to determine the angle of inclination, , when the ball takes the least time to
travel along the horizontal track, therefore having the highest velocity were successfully met.
One of the sources of error in the experiment is the method of releasing the ball. In this experiment,
the ball was released by hand, therefore the gauging of the correct position for release of the ball is
prone to human error. The release of the ball in this manner could also result in the addition of extra
forces on the ball, thus affecting the experimental data. This can be easily rectified by using a clamp
attached to that position on the incline. This would ensure that the ball is released from the same
position, and with the clamp at a sideways orientation with respect to the incline, it would minimise
other forces that might act on the ball during release.
Another source of error was the junction between the incline and the horizontal track. When the ball
hits the horizontal track, it releases much of its energy as sound energy, especially at higher angles.
Furthermore, this collision between the ball and the track could result in scratches or slight
deformation of the ball or track. This would affect further experimental data. This error can be
reduced by introducing a small curve at the junction between the incline and horizontal track.
However, this would be impractical as it will not be adjustable, resulting in having to use many tracks
set at different angles.