Lillian Xu

Period 3
Group Members: Megan
Bland, Garrett
Nicholson, Tom Park
Free Fall Lab
Performed: Sept. 3, 2010

The purpose of this lab is use calculations to

determine the number of clicks an acceleration tape timer clicked per minute.
An acceleration tape timer, paper tape, masking tape, carbon paper, a weight,
and a meter stick were used to collect data for this lab. A wingspan of paper tape was
measured out and taped (with masking tape) onto a weight. The tape was placed into
the acceleration tape timer, and pulled through so that the weight was on the edge of
the timer. Carbon paper was placed under the actual clicker in the acceleration tape
timer so each click would be marked on the tape. The timer was then positioned on the
edge of a table, and turned on simultaneously as the weight was dropped. The dots on
the tape were then measured in centimeters with a meter stick relative to the position
of the first dot.

Raw Data:
Table 1: Raw Data
Time Position
t (clicks) x (cm)
0 0
1 0.09
2 0.19
3 0.35
4 0.50
5 0.71
6 0.93
7 1.33
8 1.54
9 1.88
10 2.42
11 2.83
12 3.43
13 4.12
14 4.83
15 5.60
 Time Position
T(clicks) X (cm)
16 6.49
17 7.45
18 8.62
19 10.30
20 12.31
21 14.65
22 17.21
23 20.16
24 23.50
25 26.92
26 30.76
27 34.69
28 39.07
29 43.50
30 48.61
31 53.61
32 58.94
33 64.82
34 69.71
35 76.00
36 81.45
37 87.00
38 94.57

Random Error:
Random error occurred when measuring distances between the initial point and
following points; the meter stick has an intrinsic and inevitable error of around ±.05 cm
since it only measures down to the millimeter, but there was also random error that
occurred within each individual reading of the meter stick. Because several of the initial
distances were very minute, reading of the meter stick could not be as precise, and thus
contributed to random error. Another source of random error can be attributed to the
faint markings of the carbon paper. Because several of the dots were very light, group
members traced the dots with a blue ink pen in order to distinguish them for better
measurement. Though they were meticulously marked, these pen marks were larger
than the original dots, and thus when measuring distances, it was possible that each
distance was not from the exact center of the individual dots.
Table 2: Random Error
Absolute Percent
Time Error Error
t (clicks) ±(cm) ±%
0 0.05 0.00
1 0.05 55.56
2 0.05 26.32
 3 0.05 14.29
4 0.05 10.00
Absolute Percent
Time Error Error
t (clicks) ±(cm) ±%
5 0.05 7.04
6 0.05 5.38
7 0.05 3.76
8 0.05 3.25
9 0.05 2.66
10 0.05 2.07
11 0.05 1.77
12 0.05 1.46
13 0.05 1.21
14 0.05 1.04
15 0.05 0.89
16 0.05 0.77
17 0.05 0.67
18 0.05 0.58
19 0.05 0.49
20 0.05 0.41
21 0.05 0.34
22 0.05 0.29
23 0.05 0.25
24 0.05 0.21
25 0.05 0.19
26 0.05 0.16
27 0.05 0.14
28 0.05 0.13
29 0.05 0.11
30 0.05 0.10
31 0.05 0.09
32 0.05 0.08
33 0.05 0.08
34 0.05 0.07
35 0.05 0.07
36 0.05 0.06
37 0.05 0.06
38 0.05 0.05

From this table, it can be seen that initial distance measurements, most notably the first
four, acutely affect the random error due to the smallness of these distances; gradually,
as the distances increased, the percent error decreased significantly. Percent error was
calculated through the following equation:

I Accepted Value - Measured Value I

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– X 100% = Percent Error
Accepted Value
Systematic Error:
Systematic error can be observed in the graph of Position vs. Time, where the
raw data was superimposed on a graph of the theoretical position. In the first 16 clicks,
the raw data’s position was consistently greater than that of the theoretical curve. This
systematic error can be attributed to the “pushing” of the weight off of the table; this
push adds a horizontal component, and thus the beginning points are not only
accelerating by gravity, but also by this initial shove. This error can also be attributed to
reaction time; because different individuals were holding the tape and starting the
clicker, it is possible that the two were not started in synchronization. Another source of
systematic error that must be mentioned is air resistance; it was sure to decrease the
velocity and acceleration of the tape.
Data, Calculations, and Analysis:
Table 3: Position vs. Time
Note: Original position was recorded in centimeters. However, for efficiency of future
calculations, the units were converted into meters.

Graph 1: Position vs. Time (cm)

Time Position Position

t (clicks) x (cm) x (m)
0 0 0.0000
1 0.09 0.0009
2 0.19 0.0019
3 0.35 0.0035
4 0.50 0.0050
5 0.71 0.0071
6 0.93 0.0093
7 1.33 0.0133
8 1.54 0.0154
9 1.88 0.0188
10 2.42 0.0242
11 2.83 0.0283
12 3.43 0.0343
13 4.12 0.0412
14 4.83 0.0483
15 5.60 0.0560
16 6.49 0.0649
17 7.45 0.0745
18 8.62 0.0862
19 10.30 0.1030
20 12.31 0.1231
21 14.65 0.1465
22 17.21 0.1721
23 20.16 0.2016
24 23.50 0.2350
25 26.92 0.2692
26 30.76 0.3076
27 34.69 0.3469
28 39.07 0.3907
29 43.50 0.4350
30 48.61 0.4861
31 53.61 0.5361
32 58.94 0.5894
33 64.82 0.6482
Time Position Position
t (clicks) x (cm) x (m)
34 69.71 0.6971
35 76.00 0.7600
36 81.45 0.8145
37 87.00 0.8700
38 94.57 0.9457
This graph is a representation of each dot’s position (in centimeters) from the initial dot
and its corresponding time (measured by clicks.)
Graph 2: Position vs. Time (m)

This graph is a representation of each dot’s position (in meters) from the initial dot and
its corresponding time (measured by clicks.) As mentioned before, position was
converted into meters so the units would match with future calculations involving
acceleration, which is in m/s2.

Both graphs have an obvious curve; with each increasing click, the position from
the initial point grew exponentially. Accuracy of this curve will be analyzed in following
graphs, where a theoretical curve will be produced in order to provide comparison.
Table 4: Velocity vs. Average Time
Since V=∆x/∆t, ∆x and ∆t were first determined in order to calculate velocity. Change in
position, or displacement, is the individual distances between consecutive points. These

Time Time Interval Average Time Displacement Velocity

t (clicks) ∆t (click) tAVE (click) ∆x (m) ∆x/∆t (m/click)
0 0 0.5 0 0
1 1 1.5 0.0009 0.0009
2 1 2.5 0.0010 0.0010
3 1 3.5 0.0016 0.0016
4 1 4.5 0.0015 0.0015
5 1 5.5 0.0021 0.0021
6 1 6.5 0.0022 0.0022
7 1 7.5 0.0040 0.0040
8 1 8.5 0.0021 0.0021
9 1 9.5 0.0034 0.0034
10 1 10.5 0.0054 0.0054
11 1 11.5 0.0041 0.0041
12 1 12.5 0.0060 0.0060
13 1 13.5 0.0069 0.0069
14 1 14.5 0.0071 0.0071
15 1 15.5 0.0077 0.0077
16 1 16.5 0.0089 0.0089
17 1 17.5 0.0096 0.0096
18 1 18.5 0.0117 0.0117
19 1 19.5 0.0168 0.0168
20 1 20.5 0.0201 0.0201
21 1 21.5 0.0234 0.0234
22 1 22.5 0.0256 0.0256
23 1 23.5 0.0295 0.0295
24 1 24.5 0.0334 0.0334
25 1 25.5 0.0342 0.0342
26 1 26.5 0.0384 0.0384
27 1 27.5 0.0393 0.0393
28 1 28.5 0.0438 0.0438
29 1 29.5 0.0443 0.0443
30 1 30.5 0.0511 0.0511
31 1 31.5 0.0500 0.0500
32 1 32.5 0.0533 0.0533
33 1 33.5 0.0588 0.0588
34 1 34.5 0.0489 0.0489
Time Time Interval Average Time Displacement Velocity
t (clicks) ∆t (click) tAVE (click) ∆x (m) ∆x/∆t (m/click)
35 1 35.5 0.0629 0.0629
36 1 36.5 0.0545 0.0545
37 1 37.5 0.0555 0.0555
38 1
values were found by subtracting each position by the position recorded in the previous
click. Change in time, or the time interval, is the time between each click. These values
were found by subtracting the number of clicks by the previous number of clicks.
Velocity was then determined by dividing displacement by corresponding time intervals.
Because all the clicks were only one apart, the velocities ended up having the same
value as their corresponding displacements. Average time was calculated by finding the
arithmetic mean between consecutive times.

Graph 3: Velocity vs. Average Time

Note that this graph is Velocity vs. Average Time, not Velocity vs. Time. This is
because velocity is over a time interval, not at a specific point, and thus it was graphed
against the average times. Using these points, Excel was used to create a line of best
fit. This line provides two critical pieces of information: the slope of the line is the
average acceleration of the tape throughout the entire run, and the y-intercept of the
line is the initial speed, V0. It is apparent that the velocity is inconsistent, especially in
the first 20 clicks, where there is some systematic error. The initial values of velocity are
much higher than the values from the calculated line of best fit, and this disparity can
be accounted for in the initial “push” that was needed to propel the weight off of the
table. There is also some random error, most notably in the last ten clicks of the trial.
Despite this error, the r2 value (a statistical measure of how well the regression line
approximates the real data points, 1.0 being a perfect fit) was still relatively high, at .
92025, indicating that there was minimal random error in the case of calculated
velocities. The slope found from the line of best fit, and therefore the acceleration of the
graph was calculated to be .0019
Time Theoretical Position m/click2, and the y-intercept of the
t (clicks) xy(m) graph, or the initial velocity, was
0 0.0000
found to be -.0118 m/click. Obviously
1 -0.0109
2 -0.0198 the initial velocity was not negative,
3 -0.0269 but due to the random error carried
4 -0.0320 throughout the calculations, there is
5 -0.0353
6 -0.0366 bound to be certain limitations to the
7 -0.0361 accuracy of the calculations.
8 -0.0336 Table 5: Calculated Acceleration and
9 -0.0293
Initial Velocity
10 -0.0230
11 -0.0149
12 -0.0048
Acceleration Initial Velocity
13 0.0071
a (m/click2) v0 (m/click)
14 0.0210
0.001915 -0.0118 0.0368
16 0.0544 Table 6: Theoretical Position vs. Time
17 0.0740
18 0.0954
19 0.1188
20 0.1440
Time Theoretical Position
t (clicks) xy(m)
21 0.1712
22 0.2002
23 0.2312
24 0.2640
25 0.2988
26 0.3354
27 0.3740
28 0.4144
29 0.4568
30 0.5010
31 0.5472
32 0.5952
33 0.6452
34 0.6970
35 0.7508
36 0.8064
37 0.8640
38 0.9234
With the acceleration and initial velocity found from the Velocity vs. Average Time
graph, it was possible to determine a theoretical curve of the position, using the
kinematic equation x=x0+v0t+.5at2 and the raw times. This curve was plotted against
the raw data in order to draw a comparison and analyze the accuracy of the raw data.
Graph 4: Position vs. Time (With Theoretical Curve)

The raw data fits nicely with the theoretical curve, with the major noticeable
difference in the first ten clicks, due to the added horizontal component of the “push.”
However, for the most part, the curve follows nicely with the data points, suggesting
that the calculated initial velocity and acceleration were generally accurate.

Final Calculations:
With the average acceleration of the tape calculated, and the known acceleration of
gravity, it was now possible to determine the number of clicks that occur in one second.
The following calculation was used to determine the number of clicks per second:

Table 7: Acceleration found in Experiment, and Acceleration due to Gravity

Acceleration
Calculated due to
Acceleration Gravity
a (m/click2) g (m/s2)
0.0019 9.8

1.

= 5157.8947

2.

= 71.82 clicks/second

Using the factor label method, the number of clicks per second was calculated to be
71.82 clicks per second. The accepted value is at 60 clicks per second; 71.82
clicks/second – 60 clicks/second = 11.82 clicks/second; this difference can be reported
as the systematic error. To find the overall percent error, the same formula used to find
percent error discussed earlier was used:
I Accepted Value - Measured Value I
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– X 100% = Percent Error
Accepted Value

|11.82|/60 X 100 % = 19.7 %

Thus, the overall percent error of this experiment was 19.7%. This error can be
attributed to the various sources mentioned previously.

Conclusion
In the end, the original objective of the lab was reached, and the number of
clicks per second was found to be 71.82 clicks per second. This value was arrived at
through several calculations. First, the displacement and time interval was determined
through simple subtraction of the raw data. Once these two values were determined, it
was possible to find the velocity of the tape, because velocity is equal to the quotient of
displacement over time. The velocity was then graphed against the average time
(calculated by finding the arithmetic mean of two consecutive clicks) and a line of best
fit was plotted through Excel. This line, with a relatively good r2 value at .92025, had
the equation of y = 0.0019x - 0.0118. This equation contained two important aspects:
its slope was the overall, average acceleration of the tape (m/click2) and the y-intercept
was the initial velocity (m/click.) These values, in conjunction with raw time, were used
in the kinematic equation x=x0+v0t+.5at2 to plot a theoretical curve of position. Once
plotted against the raw position graph, it was found that the two were very similar,
therefore implying that the calculated acceleration and initial velocity were viable.
Finally, with this backing, the objective was achieved when dividing the acceleration due
to gravity (a known value at 9.8 m/s2) by the calculated acceleration (.0019 m/click2)
and taking the square root of this value. This value was found to be 71.82 clicks/second,
which was 11.82 clicks more than the accepted value, thus giving the experiment a
systematic, absolutely error of 11.82. Using the previously mentioned formula, the
percent error was calculated to be 19.7%.
This error stems from both random and systematic sources. Sources of random
error include the inherent imprecision of the meter stick, as the markings of the pen
which could have altered certain measurements by minute distances. Sources of
systematic error include the existence of a horizontal component of acceleration when
pushing the weight off of the table; this addition creates a faster velocity in the first
couple of clicks, and alters the overall calculated acceleration of the tape. Another
source of systematic error which could explain why a the middle chunk of the line of
best fit lay above around 10 points is due to air resistance, which slowed down the
velocity of the tape. For future experiments, in order to ensure less error, a better sheet
of carbon paper should be used, and a more precise and accurate measuring device
would be enhance the results as well.