Finalresearchpaper

Drop Height and Ball Mass on the Efficiency of Energy Conversion
Jacob Nadolsky and Megan Phillips
Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center
Physics
11C
Mr. McMillan / Mrs. Cybulski / Mrs. Tallman
9 June 2016
Nadolsky - Phillips 1
Introduction
Which object will conserve more of its energy after it is dropped from the
same height, a lightweight beach ball or a heavier basketball? Most people would
choose one ball or the other, but they would be surprised to find out both balls
should conserve all of their energy, or at least most of it. According to the Law of
Conservation of Energy, mass should be negligible during the conversion from
gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy.
The purpose of this experiment was to test the effects of drop height and
ball mass on the efficiency of energy conversion. The efficiency of energy
conversion can be defined as how much of an objects gravitational potential
energy is successfully converted into kinetic energy when it is dropped. The
efficiency of energy conversion also gives information to how much energy was
lost during conversion. This energy can be lost during descent when being
converted to sound, dissipating because of air resistance, or running into the
ground when the ball bounces after the fall.
To conduct this experiment, a tennis ball, baseball, and softball of 58, 147,
and 196 grams, respectively, were dropped from one meter, two meters, and
three meters in various trials. Gravitational potential energy was found for each
ball. The velocities of the sportsballs right before they reached the ground were
measured using a cellular video application, and these values were used to
calculate the kinetic energy of each sportsball. The efficiency of energy
conversion was calculated by dividing the kinetic energy of each ball by its
gravitational potential and multiplying by one hundred to turn the answer into a
percentage.
The results of this experiment can be applied to further science in the field
of alternative energy. Many people have heard about the harm that fossil fuels do
to the environment, and companies are looking now more than ever for ways to
power their industries more cleanly. Besides the common alternative energies
such as wind and solar, there is gravity-powered energy called pumped-storage
hydroelectricity (PSH). This method of energy collecting uses falling water to spin
turbines and create electricity, and can also keep reservoirs and rivers in
balance. A detailed description of this process can be found in the Conclusion.
The transfers of kinetic and potential energy, as well as other types of
energies, is important in designing amusement parks. Engineers must construct
rides so that people are not bored by slow turns but at the same time not
endangered by high speeds. While there is not much left to discover in this field,
it is still a useful application for the concepts covered in this experiment.

Review of Literature
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effects of mass and
drop height on the efficiency of energy conversion from gravitational to kinetic
energy. According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, total momentum
remains constant in a collision, whether it be elastic or inelastic (Fitzpatrick). This
means gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy should be equal to each
other when an object is dropped. However, this is only true of a completely
isolated system, which can be difficult to attain (Isolated and Nonisolated
Systems). An objects energy initially taking the form of gravitational potential
may be lost to sound or air resistance as the object falls to the ground, leading to
an imperfect, or less than 100%, energy conservation.
There are various formulas required to find the conservation of energy.
One variable used is a given variable. G, the acceleration of gravity, is equal to
9.8 meters per second squared, meaning that as an object falls, it continues to
speed up until it hits the ground. The equation using this value is shown below.
GPE = m * g * h
Figure 1. Gravitational Potential Energy Formula
Figure 1 displays the equation used to calculate the gravitational potential
energy of an object. The mass of the object, which must be measured in
kilograms, is multiplied by the acceleration of gravity (in m/s2) and then by the
height (in m) from which the object is being dropped. The unit for gravitational
potential energy is joules (J).

The second equation, for which the aforementioned velocity is used, is
seen below in Figure 2.
KE = * m * v2
Figure 2. Kinetic Energy Formula
Figure 2 shows the equation used to find the kinetic energy of an object.
The mass of the object, again in kilograms, is multiplied by the square of the final
velocity (in m/s) and then divided by two. The unit for KE is also Joules (J).
Numerous experiments have been conducted on this topic, partly because
it is fairly accessible and is generally easy and inexpensive to test. One study,
conducted by two physics professors at Purdue University, tested energy
conservation much like this experiment, but utilized a different property. R.M.
French and Thomas Kirk, the two physics professors, also calculated the GPE of
certain objects and dropped them, but instead of measuring their final velocity,
they measured how much the object decompressed a spring waiting on the
ground (French and Kirk). Just as GPE and KE are equal in a closed system,
GPE and EPE (elastic potential energy) are also equal. The equation for EPE is
below.
EPE = * k * x2
Figure 3. Formula for Elastic Potential Energy
Much like gravitational potential energy, this formula features a constant.
The constant k represents the elasticity of a spring. A high k value indicates a
spring that is reluctant to compress, while a low k value indicates easy

compression, which might be seen in something like a Slinky toy or mattress
bedsprings. The constant is followed by the square of the variable x, which
measures the actual decompression of the spring (in m). The overall product is
the elastic potential energy in joules (J) (Nave).
When the two conducted this experiment, their energy conservation rates
(EPE / GPE * 100) were consistently above 80 percent (French and Kirk).
Another experiment similar to this one was done by a professor from the
University of Minnesota. The professors experiment did measure the final
velocity of a falling object using a motion sensor, but did not utilize the kinetic
energy equation. Instead, the author found the percent error in their experimental
velocity, which is what they actually measured, and the theoretical velocity they
solved for using the equation in Figure 4 below.
vf2 = 2ad + vi2.
Figure 4. Alternate Final Velocity Formula
Figure 4 provides an equation that can be used to calculate the
experimental and theoretical final velocity of an object. The acceleration of
gravity (in m/s2) is multiplied by the distance the object is above the ground (in m)
and then multiplied by two. The square of the initial velocity (in m/s) is added to
this value, if there is an initial velocity. This final calculated value is equal to the
square of the final velocity of the dropped object. This equation was used in the
experiment previously explained.

The percent error rates of their experiment maxed out at only eight
percent (Smith). In the scientific community, experiments and their results are
generally accepted if error rates stay below ten percent. If they rise above ten
percent, the data can be seen as incorrect, unreliable, or variable, which might
indicate a problem with the experimental design or the execution of procedures.
Since this experiment had error rates all below ten percent, the results can be
accepted and the accuracy of motion sensors when measuring velocity is
credible enough to base this experiment on.
The Law of Conservation of Energy has been proven and is accepted as
fact by the scientific community. This research was simply another way of testing
and proving that the law works; however, this experiment hoped to prove that the
law works under many different circumstances. This experiment showed that the
law would hold true not just with one height or with one constant mass, but with
seven different combinations of the two. This project was also designed to show
how air resistance and loss of energy in a nonisolated system can affect energy
conservation.
Problem Statement
Problem:
To determine the effects of mass and drop height on the efficiency of
energy conversion from gravitational to kinetic energy.
Hypothesis:
Mass will have little to no effect on the conversion of energy, while drop
height will have a small negative effect due to air resistance.
Data Measured:
The independent variables were the height from which the object was
dropped and the mass of the object. The low, standard, and high drop heights
were one, two, and three meters, respectively. The low, standard, and high
masses were a tennis ball, (59 grams), a baseball (147 grams), and a softball
(196 grams), respectively. The dependent variables were the gravitational
potential and kinetic energy calculated in each trial. A two-factor design of
experiment was appropriate for analysis of this experiment because there were
two independent variables being tested. This type of statistical test allows the
effects of the independent variables as well as any interaction effects to be
determined and analyzed. For each of the three runs, seven trials were
conducted: three standards, and four combination trials of low and high drop
height and mass.

Experimental Design
Materials:
(3) Meter sticks

Dudley Softball
Diamond Little League Baseball
Wilson Tennis ball
Vernier Video Physics App for iPhone
Procedure:
1. Calculate the gravitational potential energy (GPE) of each object using the
formula GPE = mgh, where m is the mass of the object (in kilograms), g is
the gravity acceleration constant 9.8 square meters per second squared,
and h is the drop height (in meters). Sample calculation is seen in
Appendix B.
2. Retrieve assigned sportsball for trial and drop from specified height. For
example, a low height trial is one meter. A standard is two meters. High
height trials are three meters.
3. Open the Vernier Video Physics App, and press the red button at the
bottom of the screen to record a video of the ball as it is dropped.
Calculate the final velocity of the falling object. Directions for Vernier Video
Physics app are seen in Appendix A.
4. Calculate kinetic energy of the sportsball using the formula KE = 0.5mv2,

where m, again, is the objects mass, and v is the objects final velocity in
meters per second. Sample calculation is seen in Appendix B.
5. To determine the efficiency of energy conversion, divide the final kinetic

energy by the gravitational potential energy and multiply by 100 to convert
to a percentage. A sample calculation is seen in Appendix B.
6. Record final velocity of sportsball and efficiency of energy conversion

percentage.
7. Repeat steps 1-6 for each trial.

Diagram:
Figure 5. Procedure Setup
Figure 5 displays one setup of the experiment. This is an image of a
standard trial: the ball being dropped is a baseball, which was the middle of the
three masses, and it is being dropped from two meters, the middle of the three
heights. The ball is dropped from the top of the meterstick to attain as close to
exactly two meters as possible.

Data and Observations

Table 1
Factors Used in Experiment
Drop Height (meters) Ball Mass (kilograms)
(-) Standard (+) (-) Standard (+)
1 2 3 0.0585 0.147 0.196
Table 1 shows the two factors used in the experiment in addition to their
low, standard, and high values. The low, standard, and high-mass balls used
were tennis ball, baseball, and softball, respectively.
There are various formulas required to find the conservation of energy.
One variable used is a given variable. G, the acceleration of gravity, is equal to
9.8 meters per second squared, meaning that as an object falls, it continues to
speed up until it hits the ground. The equation that uses this value is seen below.
GPE = mass * acceleration of gravity * height
Figure 6. Gravitational Potential Energy Formula
Figure 6 displays the equation used to calculate the gravitational potential
energy of an object. The mass of the object, which must be measured in
kilograms, is multiplied by the acceleration of gravity (in m/s2) and then by the
height (in m) from which the object is being dropped. The unit for gravitational
potential energy is joules (J).
The second equation, for which the aforementioned velocity is used, is
seen below in Figure 7.

KE = * mass * (final velocity)2
Figure 7. Kinetic Energy Formula
Figure 7 shows the equation used to find the kinetic energy of an object.
The mass of the object, again in kilograms, is multiplied by the square of the final
velocity (in m/s) and then divided by two. The unit for KE is also Joules (J).
% conserved = (KE / GPE) 100
Figure 8. Percentage of Energy Conserved Formula
Figure 8 shows the equation used to calculate the percentage of energy
conserved when converting from GPE to KE. To do this, the KE was divided by
the GPE and multiplied by 100 (see Appendix B for sample calculations).
Table 2
Percentage of Energy Conserved Data Table
Order Trial % cons Order Trial % Order Trial %
cons cons
1 Std. 94.6 1 Std. 95.2 1 Std. 94.3
5 (+ , +) 98.5 2 (+ , +) 96.9 3 (+ , +) 98.0
2 (+ , -) 95.9 6 (+ , -) 97.2 6 (+ , -) 95.4
4 Std. 93.7 4 Std. 97.7 4 Std. 94.0
3 (- , +) 92.2 5 (- , +) 95.2 5 (- , +) 93.5
6 (- , -) 93.9 3 (- , -) 97.9 2 (- , -) 95.7
7 Std. 95.5 7 Std. 96.5 7 Std. 95.9
Table 2 shows the data collected. Each run consisted of three standards,
conducted first, fourth, and seventh, along with four other trials that were run in a
randomized order (see Appendix C). When denoting which type of trial was run,
the height variable precedes the mass variable. For instance, the (- , +) trial was
run at a low height of one meter with the highest mass, the softball.
Table 3
Observations
Run Trial Observations
1 (-,-) The video was taken slightly off-angle, so the y-axis had to be
adjusted.
1 (Std.) The trial had to be rerun because the video started late and
did not capture the first few seconds of the drop.
1 (+,-) The graph of y-velocity appeared distorted, but no

inappropriate data points could be found; the trial was rerun
and proceeded normally.
2 (-,+) The ball deviated a few centimeters from the straight path it
should have followed, but the distance of error was small
enough that it did not affect the data negatively.
2 (+,-) The tennis ball was too small to be captured by the camera,
so it became slightly blurred. The video was slowed down to
increase the accuracy of the balls location.
2 (+,+) The trial had to be rerun because during the first attempt, the
ball stuck in the researchers hand and fell awkwardly,
creating a non-uniform video and velocity graph.
3 (Std.) The trial had to be rerun because the video started late and
did not capture the first few seconds of the balls descent.
3 (+,-) The tennis ball was too small to be captured by the camera,
so it became slightly blurred. The video was slowed down to
increase the accuracy of the balls location.
3 (+,+) The ball rolled off the researchers hand instead of dropping
straight down, so it deviated from the straight path the other
trials followed. The deviation in this trial seemed too large to
ignore, so the trial was rerun.
3 (Std.) The ball briefly scraped the wall right when it was dropped,
which could have led to energy loss by friction. Trial
Table 3 shows the observations collected during the experiment. For the
most part, only small problems were encountered, and trials were rerun to
prevent bad data collection. Final velocities were fairly consistent among trials of
the same type, so the data appear to be valid.
Figure 9. Experimental Design Process
Figure 9 displays a picture of one standard trial being conducted. In
standard trials, a baseball with mass of 0.147 kilograms was dropped from a
height of two meters. Once the ball has been dropped, the video analysis begins.
See Appendix A for details on Vernier VideoPhysics details.

Data Analysis and Interpretation
In this experiment, three different sports balls were dropped from specified
heights to test the efficiency of energy conversion from gravitational potential
energy to kinetic energy (see Table 1 for design of experiment specifications and
Appendix A for calculations). The response variable was the efficiency of energy
conversion. A two-factor design of experiment was used to analyze this data
because this design effectively finds if a variable in the experiment has an effect
on the data. The design also determines whether that effect can be deemed
statistically significant.
The data can be defined as quantitative, or numerical. Data collected
during this experiment are valid because randomization and replication were
incorporated into the experimental design. Randomization reduces bias by
ensuring that noise is more evenly spread among trials, as opposed to affecting
only one type of trial. So, the four non-standard trials of each run were conducted
in a random order (see Appendix C for directions to randomize). Replication
indicates how consistent the results were and weeds out possible outliers or
erroneous data. Three DOEs were run to include replication in the experimental
design, as well as nine standard runs, which are discussed further below.
Table 4
Design of Experiment Values
Height (meters) Ball Mass (kilograms)
(-) Standard (+) (-) Standard (+)
1 2 3 0.0585 0.147 0.196

Table 4 is the design of experiment values. The table includes the
standard values, the high values, and the low values for each factor. The
standard for height was two meters because it was the average of one and three
meters, which were the highest and the lowest heights that could easily be
measured. The standard for the type of sportsball was a baseball because it had
a higher mass than a tennis ball and lower mass than a softball, and those were
the three types of sports balls available. The high value for height was three
meters, and the low value was one meter. The high value for the type of ball was
a softball, and the low value was a tennis ball.
Table 5
Average Energy Conversion Efficiency Percentage
First Run Second Run Third Run
Order Trial % Order Trial % Order Trial %

cons cons cons
1 Std. 94.6 1 Std. 95.2 1 Std. 94.3
5 (+ , +) 98.5 2 (+ , +) 96.9 3 (+ , +) 98.0
2 (+ , -) 95.9 6 (+ , -) 97.2 6 (+ , -) 95.4
4 Std. 93.7 4 Std. 97.7 4 Std. 94.0
3 (- , +) 92.2 5 (- , +) 95.2 5 (- , +) 93.5
6 (- , -) 93.9 3 (- , -) 97.9 2 (- , -) 95.7
7 Std. 95.5 7 Std. 96.5 7 Std. 95.9

Table 6
Averages of Energy Conserved Data
Trials
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Averages
Height (m) Ball Mass (% cons) (% cons) (% cons) (% cons)
(kg)
(+) (+) 98.5 96.9 98.0 97.8
(+) (-) 95.9 97.2 95.4 96.2
(-) (+) 92.2 95.2 93.5 93.6
(-) (-) 93.9 97.9 95.7 95.8
Tables 5 and 6 show the results for the efficiency of energy conversion for
each combination of highs and lows and each run. They also show the average
of each combination of the factors. The grand average is all four averages added
together and divided by four. In this particular experiment, the grand average was
95.9% energy conserved while converting from GPE to KE.

Table 7
Effect of Height on Percent Energy Conserved
Height (m)
- +
93.6 97.8
95.8 96.2
Avg. 94.7 Avg. 97.0
Figure 10. Effect of Height
Table 7 and Figure 10 show the effect of height. The effect of height is
found by subtracting the low values average from the high values average. In
this particular variable, the low values average was 94.7% while the high values
average was 97.0%. This means that the effect of height on the efficiency of
energy conversion was 2.3%. As seen in Table 7 above, when height was held
low, only 94.7% of energy was conserved during the conversion from GPE to KE
on average. When height was held high, however, the efficiency of conversion
from GPE to KE was 97.0% on average. The difference between 97.0% and
94.7% is large compared to the differences between averages from other trials.
This means height was significant. Based on Table 7, when a ball was dropped
from three meters, more energy was conserved compared to when it was
dropped from one meter.
Table 8
Effect of Ball Mass on Percent Energy Conserved
Ball Mass
- +
96.2 97.8
95.8 93.6
Avg. 96.0 Avg. 95.7
Figure 11. Effect of Ball Mass
Table 8 and Figure 11 show the effect of the type of ball, or mass. The
effect of the type of ball is found by subtracting the low values average from the
high values average. In this variable, the low values average was 96.0% while
the high values average was 95.7%. This means that the effect of ball mass on
the efficiency of energy conversion was -0.3%. Ball mass was not nearly as
significant as height was. The difference between 96.0% and 95.7% is much less
than the difference between 94.7% and 97.0%. This lack of significance of mass
is reasonable because the Law of Conservation of Energy states that mass
should not matter during energy conversion.
Table 9
Interaction Effect
Ball Mass (kilograms)
(-) (+)
Height Solid (+) 96.2 97.8

(meters) Segment
Dotted (-) 95.8 93.6

Segment
Figure 12. Interaction Effect

Table 9 and Figure 12 show the interaction effect of height and type of
ball. As for the predictor variables and their interaction (see Figure 12 above), the
slopes of the line segments are different. The solid segment in Figure 12
represents the three meters trials averages and the dotted segment represents
the one meter trials averages. The slope of the solid segment is 0.8%, and the
slope of the dotted segment is -1.1%. The interaction effect is found by
subtracting the slope of the dotted segment from the slope of the solid segment.
The interaction effect of these factors is 1.9%.
Figure 13. Standards Plot
Figure 13 shows a graph of the standards data collected. Variability of the
standards (the range of standards) provides an indication of an experiments
consistency in design and execution. A range of standards of 4%, in conjunction
with 1.6% in (+ , +) trials, 1.8% in (+ , -), 3.0% (- , +), and 4.0% in (- , -) suggests
consistency in the experiment and thus reliability in the data collected. There is
no increasing or decreasing trend in the standards, further ensuring their validity.
A range of 4% is large compared to the ranges of the individual types of trials,
but it is not as large as the range of the data as a whole.
The lowest value was 93.7% conversion efficiency, while the highest was
97.7%, yielding a standards range of 4%. Doubling this range results in a graph
with boundaries at 8% (see chart below). Any variable with an effect greater
than 8% or less than -8% is deemed statistically significant.
Figure 14. Dot Plot of Effects
Figure 14 shows the effects of drop height (H), ball mass (B), and their
interaction (HB). A dot plot can be used when examining significant factors in an
experiment. No factors were considered statistically significant because none of
them fell outside of the doubled range of standards. Drop height, however, was
this experiments most significant factor, as its effect was the furthest from zero.
As seen in Figure 10, the slope of the drop height effect is much steeper than
that of the ball mass. Keeping this in mind, it can be inferred that drop height had
a strong effect on the data.
Although it is not statistically significant, the data averages show that
height did have quite an effect on the efficiency of energy conversion. As seen in
Table 7 above, when height was held low, only 94.7% of energy was conserved
during the conversion from GPE to KE on average. When height was held high,
however, the efficiency of conversion from GPE to KE was 97.0% on average.
The difference between 97.0% and 94.7% is large compared to the differences
between averages from other trials. This means height had an effect, but not a
statistically significant one. Based on Table 7, when a ball was dropped from
three meters, more energy was conserved compared to when it was dropped
from one meter.
The range of standards and dot plot of effects leads to the development of
prediction equations, which are stated and explained in Appendix D.

Conclusion
This experiment was designed to test the effect of two variables, height
and ball mass, on the efficiency of energy conversion from gravitational potential
energy to kinetic energy. The trial levels for height were one meter, two meters,
and three meters; the trial levels for ball mass were 0.0585 kilograms, 0.147
kilograms, and 0.196 kilograms for a tennis ball, baseball, and softball
respectively. Efficiency of energy conversion from gravitational potential energy
(GPE) to kinetic energy (KE) was the response variable with percentage as the
unit of measure. The response variable was calculated by dividing the final
kinetic energy by the initial gravitational energy.
The hypothesis stated that mass would not matter, or would have zero
effect, on the energy conversion, and that height would have a negative effect on
the response variable, meaning that as drop height increased, percent
conservation would decrease. This hypothesis was developed with two thoughts
in mind: one, that all objects accelerate at the same rate, so mass should not
matter; and two, that the longer an object is in the air, the more time it has to lose
energy to air resistance, sound, or other factors.
After the data were analyzed, the hypothesis was rejected. The mass
portion of the hypothesis was correct, as the effect of mass was only -0.3. This
meant that when mass increased, conservation on average decreased by 0.3%.
When looking at the data as a whole, especially the range of standards of
4%, this 0.3% value is quite small, and the closest of the three effects to zero,
which is consistent with the prediction that mass would have no effect. On the
contrary, the drop height portion of the hypothesis turned out not to be confirmed
by the data. The effect of drop height was 2.3, so while it was correct to assume
height would have a larger effect on energy conversion than mass, the
assumption was made in the wrong direction. It turned out that when the ball was
in the air for longer, more of its energy was actually conserved instead of lost.
Each time drop height increased by a meter, an average of 2.3% more of the
balls gravitational energy was conserved when converting to kinetic energy. In
the end, neither of the explanatory variables were deemed statistically significant
(outside of double the range of standards).
Overall, the height from which the sportsballs were dropped was the most
significant effect at 2.3%. The least significant effect was mass, which only had
an effect of -0.3%. The interaction effect had the second highest effect on the
efficiency of energy conversion at 1.9%. The low effect of mass supports the idea
of mass being negligible during energy conversion. The high effect of height
supports the idea of other factors having an effect on energy conversion when an
object has more time to fall to the ground.
The mass variable observations agree with previous research and the
laws of physics. One way of proving the observation is seen below.
GP E
% conserved = KE = 1mgh gh
= 1 2
2 mv 2v
2
Figure 15. Manipulation of Energy Equations

Figure 15 shows an explanation of why mass did not have a large effect in
the experiment. When the formulas for GPE and KE are divided as they were to
find the efficiency percentage, the ms, which is the variable for mass, on the top
and bottom cancel out. Thus, mass should have no effect on the conservation.
While the observations in this experiment were close to zero, they were not
exactly zero; that will be discussed later on in this section.
It is the drop height portion of the experiment that was not expected and
defied the laws of physics. When in a nonisolated system, the longer an object
is in the air, the more opportunity it has to lose energy to some outside factor
(Kinetic and Potential Energy). Thus, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that
the higher the object starts, the less energy it should keep because it is in the air
for longer. But when the balls were held higher up in the air, they tended to
conserve more energy. The softball saved 93.6% at one meter and 97.8% at
three meters, and the tennis ball saved 95.8% at one meter and 96.2% at three
meters (see Table 7 in Data Analysis and Interpretation).
The inconsistencies between accepted laws and collected data for the
high trials can be attributed to one of two flaws in the experimental design. The
first is the setup for those high-height trials. Since neither of the researchers were
tall enough to reach three meters by standing on a single chair, two chairs had to
be set up, and the second was somewhat unstable and wobbly. Even with the
second chair, the necessary height could barely be attained when standing on
tiptoes, so there was no way to stay steady and make sure that the ball was
dropped from exactly 300 centimeters. So, the height could have actually been
higher or lower than three meters, which would lead to erroneous data.
The second possible source of conflict was the analysis of the videos once
the ball had been dropped. Since the software used was often not able to track
such small objects as tennis balls or softballs from the longer distance needed to
capture the tall frame, only some trials got a more accurate computer reading of
the data points. Most trials had to have their data points set by hand, which could
have lead to inconsistencies between trials, especially when two different
researchers performed the by-hand analysis.
While not necessarily a flaw in the experimental design, the negative
effect value of mass could be partially explained by science. Since the effect was
negative, when mass was low, the energy conservation percentage was higher.
The low mass ball (the tennis ball) was the smallest of the three used, which
means it had the smallest surface area. Small surface area means less air
resistance, so the tennis ball would have experienced less air resistance than its
counterparts, which means it would conserve more of its energy.
This experiment could have useful applications in the scientific community.
There are electricity production methods which utilize the conversion of
gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy, known as pumped-storage
hydroelectricity (PSH). PSH converters are built in areas with two distinct water
levels, like dams. The system holds the upper water in place, as a dam would,
and when demand for electricity is high, it releases the upper water down, where
it falls over turbines that generate electricity when they spin. When the water is
closed off again, workers calculate the efficiency between the amount of water
released and the amount of electricity produced. Most plants average between
70 and 80 percent, the highest claiming 87 percent (Murphy). If a city or
community knows about how much electricity they need, has prior data on their
plants efficiency percentage, and knows the difference in height between the
water bodies, they can calculate how much water should be released to meet the
communitys demands for energy while still minding the health of the surrounding
environment and reducing that particular areas use of harmful fossil fuels.
Figure 16. Example Diagram of PSH Facility
Figure 16 displays an example of a pumped-storage hydroelectricity
facility. The reservoir represents the higher water level, and the vertical tunnel is
where the turbines are located. The reservoir water falls over the turbines,
creating electricity, and that water ends up in the discharge water body, which
may be another lake, pond, or river.

Gravitational and kinetic energy have uses in entertainment, as well.
Engineers who design roller coasters must take into account the GPE and KE of
the carts and people on their rides to ensure safety. For instance, on rides that
travel high into the sky, there is a huge amount of potential energy at the peak,
and if nothing is done to slow the carts before they reach the ground, sudden
curves at extremely high speeds can make people sick or endanger them, such
is the case when rides derail at high speeds or when people come loose from
their seats and fall to the ground.
Further research in this topic could delve into conservation of other types
of kinematic energy, such as elastic potential or centripetal. These energies are
also taken into account when designing carnival rides because g-forces felt on
rides can be harmful in excess. If the scientific community were to further its
knowledge of how these forces can be transformed and utilized, the production of
electricity could be much more environmentally friendly and roller coasters could
be even safer for the public. To put basic phenomena, such as forces, to work for
bettering the future is what the world is looking for in scientists these days.
Appendix A: Vernier VideoPhysics App
Vernier VideoPhysics App:
1. Press Record video to capture a video of the sportsball dropping from a
desired height.
2. Establish scale by labeling a known height in the video. In this experiment,
the known height is the meter sticks, so place the scale from the bottom of
the stick(s) to the top. Adjust the scale according to the sticks height, as
seen in the first image below, to either 1, 2, or 3 meters.
3. Align target over the ball and tap center of target to create a data point.
4. Move video forward a frame by frame by pressing the right curved arrow.
5. Repeat steps 3-4 until the sportsball first comes in contact with the floor.
See the second image below.
6. Evaluate the Time vs. Velocity graph to find the final velocity of the
sportsball. Tapping on a point yields that particular time and velocity.

Appendix B: Sample Calculations
Sample Energy Calculations:
I. Gravitational Potential Energy:
GPE = mgh
GPE = 0.147 9.8 2.0
GPE 2.9 J
II. Kinetic Energy:
KE = 0.5mv2
KE = 0.50 0.147 (6.09)2
KE 2.7 J
III. Efficiency of Energy Conversion:
final KE 2.7259... J
Econserved = GP E 100 = 2.8812 J 100 = 94.6%
In the example above, the values from the first standard trial were taken:
mass of baseball m = 0.147kg; drop height h = 2m; final velocity v = 6.09 m/s.
The subsequent calculations, including GPE, KE, and overall conservation, are
shown as well.
Appendix C: Randomization
Randomization of Trials:
1. Open the TI-Nspire computer software, or turn on a TI-Nspire calculator.
2. Open a calculator page.
3. Type randInt or go to Menu Probability Random Integer.
4. In the parentheses, type in the minimum number, followed by a comma,
the maximum number, followed by a comma, and then the number of
integers that need to be generated.
5. For this experiment, use randInt(1, 4, 1); since the randomization is for the
four non-standard trials in each run, separately generate random integers
until one, two, three, and four are all generated.
6. The (+ , +) trial will be represented by 1, the (+ , -) by 2, (- , +) by 3, and
the (- , -) trial by 4 (based on their appearance in Table 6).
7. The first standard will always be conducted first, followed by the trial
represented by whichever random integer was generated first. For
instance, if the first integer was 3, the (- , +) trial would be conducted. The
first, fourth, and seventh trials will always be standards.

Appendix D: Prediction Equations
= 95.9 + H(0.5) + M(0.5) + HM(0.5) + noise
= 95.9 + 2.3(0.5) - 0.3(0.5) + 1.9(0.5) + noise
= 95.9 + 1.15 -0.15 + 0.95 + noise
Figure 17. Prediction Equation
Figure 17 shows the initial prediction equation. This equation can be used
to predict variables of future experiments. The prediction equation is the grand
average totaled with each of the effects cut in half. Noise is an unquantifiable
variable that allows for inaccuracies due to experimental design issues or
follow-through issues. The accuracy of the DOE mathematics can be checked
using this equation.
= 95.9 - 0.15(1) + 0.95(1) +1.15(1) + noise
= 97.8
Figure 18. Checked Prediction Equation
Figure 18 is the checked prediction equation. The (+,+) experiment was
used to check. Recall that a positive one is used when referring to any high value
on a graph. A positive one was plugged into the prediction equation for both of
the effects of the variables and their interaction effect. The prediction equation is
correct because the end value matches the average for all the (+,+) trials, 97.8%.
= 95.9 + noise
Figure 19. Parsimonious Prediction Equation
Figure 19 shows the parsimonious prediction equation. Only statistically
significant effects are used in the parsimonious prediction. Because there were
no statistically significant effects in this particular experiment, the parsimonious
prediction equation is only the grand average plus noise.
If the parsimonious equation were used to interpolate from the data set,
the result would always be 95.9% because none of the effects were statistically
significant and thus the equation has no other values to add or subtract. This
makes sense because if none of the effects were truly significant (did not largely
affect the data) the most probable outcome of the trial would be the grand
average, 95.9% conserved energy.

Works Cited
Fitzpatrick, Richard. "Energy Conservation During Free Fall." University of Texas
Austin, 2 Feb. 2006. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. <http://farside.ph.utexas.
edu/teaching/301/lectures/node57.html>.
French, R. M., and Thomas Kirk. "Free Fall onto a Spring." My Favorite
Experiment Series. Purdue University, July-Aug. 2006. Web. 10 Mar.
2016. <http://met311.tech.purdue.edu/Class%20Notes/Spring%
20Drop.pdf>.
"Isolated and Nonisolated Systems." University of California San Diego, June
2011. Web. 9 Mar. 2016. <http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/summer2011/
session1/L11slides.pdf>.
"Kinetic and Potential Energy/Conservation of Energy." Energy, Entropy and
Thermodynamics for Everyman Understanding Energy (n.d.): 18-21.
Boston University. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. <http://www.bu.edu/gk12/kai/
Lesson%204/E_Back.pdf>.
Murphy, Tom. "Pump Up the Storage." Do the Math. University of California San
Diego, 15 Nov. 2011. Web. 12 May 2016.
<http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/>.
Nave, Carl R. "Conservation Laws." HyperPhysics. Georgia State University,
2010. Web. 9 Mar. 2016. <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/
conser.html>.
Smith, Jenny. "Velocity and Force." Physics 1201W. N.p., Web. University of
Minnesota, 14 July 2011. 10 Mar. 2016.
<http://homepages.spa.umn.edu/~straub/wec/guides/1201.html>.

Finalresearchpaper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finalresearchpaper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drop Height and Ball Mass on the Efficiency of Energy Conversion

Jacob Nadolsky and Megan Phillips

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

Mr. McMillan / Mrs. Cybulski / Mrs. Tallman

Conservation of Energy, mass should be negligible during the conversion from

gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy.

ball mass on the efficiency of energy conversion. The efficiency of energy

conversion can be defined as how much of an objects gravitational potential

energy is successfully converted into kinetic energy when it is dropped. The

converted to sound, dissipating because of air resistance, or running into the

ground when the ball bounces after the fall.

calculate the kinetic energy of each sportsball. The efficiency of energy

such as wind and solar, there is gravity-powered energy called pumped-storage

balance. A detailed description of this process can be found in the Conclusion.

The transfers of kinetic and potential energy, as well as other types of

energies, is important in designing amusement parks. Engineers must construct

it is still a useful application for the concepts covered in this experiment.

drop height on the efficiency of energy conversion from gravitational to kinetic

energy. According to the Law of Conservation of Energy, total momentum

remains constant in a collision, whether it be elastic or inelastic (Fitzpatrick). This

other when an object is dropped. However, this is only true of a completely

isolated system, which can be difficult to attain (Isolated and Nonisolated

Systems). An objects energy initially taking the form of gravitational potential

an imperfect, or less than 100%, energy conservation.

There are various formulas required to find the conservation of energy.

One variable used is a given variable. G, the acceleration of gravity, is equal to

Figure 1. Gravitational Potential Energy Formula

Figure 1 displays the equation used to calculate the gravitational potential

energy of an object. The mass of the object, which must be measured in

potential energy is joules (J).

The second equation, for which the aforementioned velocity is used, is

seen below in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Kinetic Energy Formula

Numerous experiments have been conducted on this topic, partly because

conducted by two physics professors at Purdue University, tested energy

Figure 3. Formula for Elastic Potential Energy

Much like gravitational potential energy, this formula features a constant.

The constant k represents the elasticity of a spring. A high k value indicates a

spring that is reluctant to compress, while a low k value indicates easy

compression, which might be seen in something like a Slinky toy or mattress

bedsprings. The constant is followed by the square of the variable x, which

the elastic potential energy in joules (J) (Nave).

University of Minnesota. The professors experiment did measure the final

solved for using the equation in Figure 4 below.

vf2 = 2ad + vi2.

Figure 4. Alternate Final Velocity Formula

Figure 4 provides an equation that can be used to calculate the

experimental and theoretical final velocity of an object. The acceleration of

experiment previously explained.

indicate a problem with the experimental design or the execution of procedures.

accepted and the accuracy of motion sensors when measuring velocity is

credible enough to base this experiment on.

The Law of Conservation of Energy has been proven and is accepted as

To determine the effects of mass and drop height on the efficiency of

energy conversion from gravitational to kinetic energy.

height will have a small negative effect due to air resistance.

(196 grams), respectively. The dependent variables were the gravitational

potential and kinetic energy calculated in each trial. A two-factor design of

effects of the independent variables as well as any interaction effects to be

height and mass.

(3) Meter sticks

4. Calculate kinetic energy of the sportsball using the formula KE = 0.5mv2,

5. To determine the efficiency of energy conversion, divide the final kinetic