APSC 100 Module 2 Tutorial Lab #1

Name: Ian Ip Student Number: 10011223

Engineering Section: 205

Jan/20th/2012

1) Table #1: Elasticity values Single Trial Big Ball, diameter = 4.260 +/- 0.005cm Small Ball, diameter = 2.970 +/- 0.005cm 0.671+/-0.030 0.850+/-0.030 Statistical Analysis 0.622+/-0.054 0.805+/-0.036 Graphical Analysis 0.636+/-0.005 0.817+/-0.007

2) The uncertainty of single trial was significantly higher when compared to that of the multiple trials based graphical analysis. The result was expected because multiple trials are able to identify random errors and find a line of best fit among all data points. Whereas single trial make use of only one single data point, which can sometime be an error itself. The single trial uncertainty should be bigger because there are no other data points to cross reference to. In multiple trials, the use of linear regression allow a more accurate determination of the line of best fit (and subsequently the slope, which is the elasticity value) and significantly lowers the uncertainty by 83% of the big ball single trial uncertainty and 77% of the small ball. 3) The data obtained from both balls demonstrated that elasticity values did not vary by height. Based on the residual plot of both balls (Refer to appendix 2), the data points of both balls are close to the horizontal axis. This was expected because of the following rearrangement of the elasticity formula:

The Elasticity value of any object is given as the rebound height (

divided by the initial height (

By rearranging the original equation to the familiar y=mx+b form (Elasticity =0 at (0, 0)), we can now plot the data recorded where the rebound height is plotted in the y axis and the dropped height is plotted in the x axis (Seeing as the is common in the small and big ball, and that the both sets of y values will be plotted against the common x values ). The new rearranged equation is a linear equation, which means that the slope (Elasticity) has to be constant and that the dropped height and rebound height have no effects on the elasticity because they are proportional to each other by a common proportion, elasticity.

4) The elasticity values of the two balls tested in the lab are not the same. After calculating elasticity from the three trial methods, all of which confirmed that the elasticity of the small ball is greater than that of the big ball. Furthermore, the uncertainty obtained from graphical analysis (Most accurate method) show that the small ball has a bigger uncertainty than that of the big ball. The reason for this is because the elasticity value is bigger. ( )

The Equation shows that if all the variables in the bracket are constant, then the uncertainty should be directly proportional to elasticity itself. 5) During the lab, systematic errors are constantly being eliminated with careful setups. For example, one member of the pair made sure that she was eyelevel with where the ball rebounded to. Rather than looking and approximating from above, she made sure that parallax was eliminated from the possible list of systematic errors. In addition, it was ensured that the actual drop height did not vary much from the measuring taped stand by lining up a ruler from the stand and out approximately 40cm away from the stand where the ball was dropped, so the ball would not hit the stand and affect the results. The lines of best fit of both balls have the intercept of zero, verifying the effectiveness in systematic error reduction. 6) The sources of random errors are listed in order of most to least significant: The accuracy of the measurement of rebound height (Eyeballing) The accuracy of the measurement of dropped height (Eyeballing) The inconsistency of each ball drop (the release of the ball)

7) After going through the original pot and regression line, the error estimates made reflected the measurement errors that were made during the lab. Although it was initially expected that the measurement errors would have been higher before the data sets were plotted. The data points remained very closely with the regression line and the error bars on each point consistently crosses with the line of best fit.

8) In conclusion, I discovered many other things during this lab (particular Newtonian mechanics based topics). First, I was able to see the effect of inertia first hand that it does not matter where the ball strikes because projectile motion states that all objects descend at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 (And of course, rebounding at the same speed in the y direction). Secondly, I was able to see a great example of energymass conservation from the ball dropped at a certain height, and coming back up to a height close to the dropped height. This is particularly true when the ball was dropped close to the ground where air friction and energy lost in the strike are in small amount where energy conservation does become more apparent. The super balls were most likely to be produced from the polymerization of certain material. Because of this, the material is uniform throughout the ball, which implies that it does not matter which side of the ball hit the ground because the elasticity will be the same. At the same time, the material of the floor will cause the elasticity to differ slightly. The elasticity will differ on the ability for the floor material to absorb the momentum and energy generated. -End

Appendix
Appendix 1: Graph and data set (Statistical analysis included)
Initial Height 30 47 64 81 98 115 132 149 166 183 200 Rebound Height 14.2 27.4 41.7 51.6 63.5 76.3 85.3 97.2 107.3 113.6 124.4 Elasticity 0.473333 0.582979 0.651563 0.637037 0.647959 0.663478 0.646212 0.652349 0.646386 0.620765 0.622 Initial Height 30 47 64 81 98 115 132 149 166 183 200 Mean: 0.804701 Elasticity Rebound Height 21.6 37.4 51.6 66.1 76.4 91.5 111.2 124.3 141.1 150.2 158.2 Elasticity 0.72 0.795745 0.80625 0.816049 0.779592 0.795652 0.842424 0.834228 0.85 0.820765 0.791

Mean: Stardard Error: 0.622187 0.054057 Elasticity 0.6362

Standard Error: 0.035904 0.817

Table 2: The data set of big ball

Table 3: The data set of small ball

The Elasticity of Rubber Balls

180 160 140 Rebound Height (cm) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Initial Drop Height (cm) H1 = 0.6362*Ho; Big Ball Big Ball Small Ball H1 = 0.817*Ho ; Small Ball

Figure 1: The plot of Dropped height vs. rebound height of the big ball and the small ball

Appendix 2: Residual Graphs

Big Ball Residual Plot

4 3 2 Residuals 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 Elasticity 0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 2: The residual plot of the big ball

Small Ball Residual Plot

6 4 Residuals 2 0 0 -2 -4 -6 Elasticity 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 3: The residual plot of the small ball

Appendix 3: Linear regression data

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.999688 R Square 0.999376 Adjusted R Square 0.888265 Standard Error 2.228678 Observatio ns 10 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 9 10 SS 71578.9 9 44.7030 4 71623.6 9 MS 71578.99 4.967005 F 14410. 9 Significan ce F 2.59E-14

Intercept Elasticity

Coefficien ts 0 0.637069

Standar d Error #N/A 0.00530 7

t Stat #N/A 120.0454

Pvalue #N/A 9.81E16

Lower 95% #N/A 0.625064

Upper 95% #N/A 0.64907 4

Lower 95.0% #N/A 0.62506 4

Upper 95.0% #N/A 0.64907 4

RESIDUAL OUTPUT Observatio n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Predicted 14.2 29.94225 40.77243 51.6026 62.43278 73.26295 84.09313 94.9233 105.7535 116.5837 127.4138 Residual s 2.54225 0.92757 5 -0.0026 1.06722 4 3.03704 8 1.20687 3 2.27669 7 1.54652 2 2.98365 3.01383 Standard Residuals -1.2024 0.438713 -0.00123 0.504762 1.436426 0.570812 1.076804 0.731455 -1.41117 -1.42544

Table 4: The linear regression data of big ball

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.999592 R Square 0.999184 Adjusted R Square 0.888073 Standard Error 3.270764 Observatio ns 10 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 9 10 Coefficien ts 0 0.817465 SS 117855. 9 96.2810 7 117952. 2 Standar d Error #N/A 0.00778 8 F 11016.7 117855.9 3 10.6979 MS Significan ce F 7.58E-14

Intercept Elasticity

t Stat #N/A 104.9606

P-value #N/A 3.28E15

Upper Lower Upper 95% 95.0% 95.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.83508 0.79984 0.83508 0.799847 4 7 4

Lower 95% #N/A

RESIDUAL OUTPUT Observatio n 1 2 3 4 5 6 Predicted 21.6 38.42088 52.31779 66.2147 80.11162 94.00853 107.9054 Residual s 1.02088 0.71779 -0.1147 3.71162 2.50853 3.29455 6 Standard Residuals -0.32901 -0.23133 -0.03697 -1.19617 -0.80844 1.06176

7 8 9 10

121.8024 135.6993 149.5962 163.4931

2.49764 3 5.40073 0.60381 7 -5.2931

0.804933 1.740532 0.194596 -1.70584

Table 5: The linear regression data of small ball

Appendix 4: The single trial error calculation

Big ball: ( Sub in values ( )( )

Small ball: ( Sub in values ( )( )