MODULE 2 LAB REPORT: ONE-DIMENSIONAL MOTION & FREE FALL

Victor Rendon
Physics I – Fall 2025
LAB DESCRIPTION

This lab explored basic kinematics in one dimension and the motion of freely falling objects
using simple, everyday equipment. Instead of working with high-tech sensors, we used tools
like painter’s tape, a tape measure, stopwatches, a triple beam balance, several balls of
different sizes and masses, and a sheet of notebook paper.

The lab was divided into several demonstrations:

1. Motion Data Plot – We were given a set of (x, y) data and asked to plot the points on
Cartesian axes. From the graph, we determined the slope of the line and discussed whether the
value was reasonable in terms of motion (for example, interpreting it as a constant velocity).
2. Two Paths Between Two Points – Using painter’s tape on the floor, we created two
paths between the same starting and ending points:
• Path 1: a straight line.
• Path 2: a zig-zag/curved path.
We measured the total distances with a tape measure and then walked each path at
approximately the same pace while timing the motion with a stopwatch. From this, we
calculated speeds/velocities and compared scalar and vector quantities.
Recorded data:
• Total distance between points: 84.5 m
• Path 1 (straight): distance = 84.5 m, time = 4.01 s
• Path 2 (zig-zag): distance = 264 m, time = 11.01 s

3–6. Free-Fall Experiments from a Staircase – We measured the vertical distance from the
upper railing to the floor of the bottom landing (recorded as 60 m in our notes, though in reality
this value is likely closer to a few meters; we proceeded using the recorded value). We then
used a triple beam balance to find the mass of different objects and dropped them from the
railing while timing their fall with stopwatches.
• Demo 3 (Two Identical Objects):
Two similar golf balls were dropped at the same time.
• Height of staircase (recorded): 60 m
• Teal golf ball: 41 g, time = 1.10 s
• White golf ball: 45.3 g, time = 1.10 s
• Demo 4 (Two Different Objects):
Teal golf ball vs. baseball.
• Teal golf ball: 41 g, time = 0.83 s
• Baseball: 143.7 g, time = 0.95 s
• Demo 5 (Round Object vs. Flat Paper):
Teal golf ball vs. a flat sheet of notebook paper.
• Teal golf ball: 41 g, time = 1.20 s
• Flat white paper: 5 g, time = 1.94 s
• Demo 6 (Round Object vs. Crumpled Paper):
Teal golf ball vs. the same paper crumpled tightly into a ball.
• Teal golf ball: 41 g, time = 0.51 s
• Crumpled white paper: 5 g, time = 0.51 s

For each of these free-fall trials we observed the motion qualitatively (how they fell, whether
they seemed to “float” or drop quickly) and used the one-dimensional motion equations to
reason about displacement, velocity, and acceleration.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

The lab was designed to meet the following learning objectives (from the module guidance and
lecture):
• Plotting motion parameters.
We practiced taking numerical data and representing it graphically on Cartesian axes, then
interpreting the slope of a line in terms of physical quantities like velocity.
• Observing and analyzing one-dimensional motion.
By walking along different taped paths and timing the motion, we connected ideas like distance,
displacement, speed, and velocity to real physical movement in a familiar environment.
• Observing and analyzing free-fall and the effects of gravity.
By dropping different objects (same mass, different mass, flat vs. crumpled) from a measured
height and timing their fall, we could see how gravity acts and when air resistance becomes
important.
• Calculating motion parameters.
Using the collected data and the standard kinematics equations, we related displacement, time,
velocity, and acceleration. Even when the numbers were “messy” or obviously affected by error,
we still used the calculations to reason about the underlying physics.

Overall, the lab aimed to help us “see” physics in everyday motion and to connect the abstract
equations from lecture with actual hands-on experiences.

⸻
SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1. Motion Data Plot and Slope

The data set given was:

X Y
0 1
1 3
2 5
3 7
4 9
5 11

When plotted, these points formed a straight line. The slope is:

slope = (Delta Y) / (Delta X) = (11 - 1) / (5 - 0) = (10) / (5) = 2.

Interpreted as motion, if X represents time and Y represents position, the slope of 2 would
represent a constant velocity of 2 units per second. This is “reasonable” because:
• The points fall exactly on a straight line, indicating constant velocity.
• Each increase of 1 in X increases Y by 2, matching the idea of uniform motion.

So, this part of the lab illustrated how a linear position–time graph corresponds to constant
velocity, and how slope directly encodes that motion parameter.

2. Straight vs. Zig-Zag Path: Distance, Displacement, Speed & Velocity

Our measurements:
• Total displacement between start and end points: 84.5 m
• Path 1 (straight):
• Distance traveled = 84.5 m
• Time = 4.01 s
• Average speed ≈ 84.5 m / 4.01 s ≈ 21.1 m/s
• Path 2 (zig-zag):
 • Distance traveled = 264 m
• Time = 11.01 s
• Average speed ≈ 264 m / 11.01 s ≈ 24.0 m/s

Even though these numerical values are unrealistically high for walking (which shows that there
were likely measurement or unit errors), the relationships between the quantities are still useful.
• The proper name for the straight-line path is the displacement path: it represents the
shortest distance between the two points.
• The zig-zag path represents the actual distance traveled (path length): it is longer
even though it starts and ends at the same points.

For the motion:

• The average speed for each path is defined as total distance / time. These are scalar
quantities because they have magnitude only (no direction).
• The average velocity is defined as displacement / time. Since the displacement
between the same two points is the same for both paths, the average velocity vector (in
magnitude and direction) would be the same if we used the same start and end points and total
time. Velocity is a vector because it includes direction as well as magnitude.

So:
• Scalar quantity: average speed (depends only on how much ground is covered per unit
time).
• Vector quantity: average velocity (depends on displacement and has an associated
direction from initial to final position).

This demonstration helped separate in my mind the ideas of distance vs. displacement and
speed vs. velocity.

3–6. Free-Fall Experiments

These demonstrations focused on how objects fall under gravity and how factors like mass,
shape, and air resistance influence their motion.

Demo 3 – Two Identical Objects

Data:
• Teal golf ball: 41 g, time = 1.10 s
• White golf ball: 45.3 g, time = 1.10 s
Both balls, which were similar in size and shape, hit the ground at essentially the same time.
This implies:
• Their accelerations were effectively the same.
• Their final velocities (if dropped from the same height) would also be very similar.

This matches the basic physics principle that in free fall (ignoring air resistance), acceleration
due to gravity does not depend on mass. Any small differences between the two balls were too
small to show up in our timing.

Demo 4 – Two Different Objects (Mass/Size)

Data:
• Teal golf ball: 41 g, time = 0.83 s
• Baseball: 143.7 g, time = 0.95 s

Here, the baseball is significantly more massive and a bit larger than the golf ball. The timings
show that the two objects did not hit exactly together:
• The lighter golf ball and the heavier baseball had slightly different fall times.
• Depending on the exact drop conditions and reaction times, one may appear to hit a
bit sooner.

In an ideal vacuum, they should hit at the same time. In real air, however:
• Air resistance (drag) depends on shape, cross-sectional area, and speed.
• The heavier object tends to be less affected by drag relative to its weight, so its
acceleration stays closer to the ideal g.
• The lighter object may be slowed more by drag, especially if its surface properties
cause more air resistance.

Our measured times are close but not identical, which is consistent with the idea that
gravitational acceleration is the same for both, but real-world air resistance and human timing
error can make small differences in the recorded times.

Demo 5 – Round Object vs. Flat Sheet of Paper

Data:
 • Teal golf ball: 41 g, time = 1.20 s
• Flat white paper: 5 g, time = 1.94 s

This trial produced a very noticeable difference:

• The flat sheet of paper fell much more slowly than the golf ball.
• Visually, the paper “floated” and sometimes drifted sideways, showing that air was
significantly affecting its motion.

Physics explanation:
• The flat sheet has large surface area and very small mass, so the air resistance
becomes comparable to or even larger than its weight.
• As a result, its acceleration is much less than g, and it might reach a small terminal
velocity quickly.
• The golf ball, being compact and heavier, experiences much smaller drag relative to its
weight and falls much closer to ideal free fall.

Thus the times, velocities, and accelerations are clearly different between the ball and the flat
paper, mainly because of air resistance.

Demo 6 – Round Object vs. Crumpled Paper

Data:
• Teal golf ball: 41 g, time = 0.51 s
• Crumpled white paper: 5 g, time = 0.51 s

This was the key comparison:

• Using the same paper from Demo 5, we crumpled it into the tightest ball we could and
dropped it together with the golf ball.
• This time, the two objects hit the floor at essentially the same time.

What changed?
• The mass of the paper stayed the same, but its shape and cross-sectional area
changed dramatically.
• Crumpling reduced the area exposed to the air, which reduced drag, and made the
paper’s motion much closer to that of the golf ball.
• With air resistance minimized, both objects accelerated at almost the same rate, close
to g.
So, the measured times, velocities, and accelerations are now much closer (effectively the same
within experimental error), which strongly supports the idea that all objects fall with the same
acceleration in a uniform gravitational field when air resistance is negligible.

Overall Discussion of Demonstrations 3–6

Across Demos 3–6, a consistent pattern appears:
• When objects have similar shapes and sizes (two golf balls, or a golf ball and a
crumpled paper ball), their fall times are nearly identical, even if their masses differ. This
supports the theoretical idea that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass.
• When an object has a large surface area and small mass (flat paper), air resistance
becomes dominant, and the object falls more slowly, giving a much larger fall time and smaller
acceleration than predicted by simple free-fall equations.
• Changing only the shape of the paper (flat → crumpled) drastically changed its motion
without changing its mass, highlighting that air resistance depends strongly on surface area
and shape, not just mass.

In addition, our recorded height (60 m) and some of the times do not match what we would
expect from ideal equations (for example, in realistic conditions a 60 m drop would take longer
than ~1 s). This suggests experimental issues such as:
• Mis-measurement or mis-recording of the height (likely closer to ~6 m than 60 m).
• Human reaction time starting and stopping the stopwatch.
• Small delays in releasing the objects exactly at the same instant.

Even with these imperfections, the relative comparisons still worked:

• Identical/compact objects fell together.
• Flat, light objects did not.
• Crumpled objects behaved more like compact objects.

From a learning perspective, this made the free-fall concepts much more concrete.

Did the Lab Meet the Learning Objectives? / What I Learned

Overall, I would say the lab did meet its learning objectives:
• I plotted motion data and used the slope to interpret a constant velocity.
 • I saw the difference between distance vs. displacement and speed vs. velocity,
especially when comparing the straight and zig-zag paths.
• I got to observe free-fall motion firsthand and saw how objects with different shapes
and masses behave in real air, which made the abstract idea of “all objects fall at the same rate
in a vacuum” feel more grounded and realistic.
• I used basic kinematics equations to reason about displacement, time, and
acceleration, even while dealing with real-world imperfections in the data.

Personally, the most important thing I learned was that air resistance and experimental error
matter a lot, and that real data will rarely be “perfect.” Instead of just trying to force the
numbers to match 9.8 m/s² exactly, I started looking for patterns and relationships (same vs.
different times, trends across trials) and then explaining those patterns with physics concepts.

It also helped me better visualize that in ideal conditions near Earth’s surface, gravity pulls
everything down with almost the same acceleration, and that the dramatic differences we see
(like paper fluttering down slowly) are really about the interaction with the air, not gravity
“liking” heavier objects more.

REFERENCES

No external references were used in preparing this report. The discussion and conclusions are
based on:
○ Course lecture notes for Physics I, Module 2.
○ “Fall 2025 Physics I Module 2 Lab Guidance” handout provided by the instructor.
○ [Link]