`

The effects of initial velocity on

horizontal range in projectile motion
Jerry Mahajan

Physics 2021
Introduction
This experiment was conducted to investigate the
relationship between the initial velocity of a projectile
and its final displacement in the x-direction. This is
used to evaluate the theory of projectile motion and
its applicability. Projectile motion states that the
horizontal velocity of a projectile is constant during
flight as the only force exerted on the projectile is
gravity, shown in Figure 1. (textbook) This was
originally discovered by Italian astronomer Galileo, he Figure 1. Acceleration and velocity diagram of a
was the first to break down the motion of a projectile projectile during flight. Red arrows are net velocity,
orange arrows are the constituent x and y-directional
into its x and y components. (journal) velocities. The only acceleration on the projectile is the
downwards force of gravity (purple arrow)
Within this investigation, practical data is compared
against theoretical predictions for the motion of a
projectile. An underlying concept of this investigation is the parabolic nature of projectile
flight. (textbook) This is due to the constant acceleration of gravity on the projectile. It is
launched with an initial velocity which can be broken into its x and y-components.
(Journal source 2) (figure 2.)

From Figure 2, we derive the two identities:

U x =V 0 cos ( θ )
1
U y =V 0 sin ( θ )
2

Figure 2. Components of initial velocity, where θ is the angle of launch. V =V 0 is initial velocity, U x is the
horizontal vector component of initial velocity and U y is the vertical component

This experiment utilises a projectile launched at a set angle from height h to the ground.
Projectile motion theory states that the relationship between y-displacement and
acceleration over time can be modelled using:

1
S y =u y t + a t 2
2
Where S y is displacement in the y-direction, u y is initial vertical velocity, a is constant
acceleration and t is time since launch.

When launching from height h

PAGE 1
 1
S y −h=+u y t + a t 2
2
3
1
S y =h+u y t+ a t 2
2
After the projectile has landed at time t=T (total time of flight), y-displacement is 0

1
0=h+u y T + g T 2
2
Where g is the downwards acceleration of gravity g=−9.81 m s−1

Rearranging for T gives time of flight in terms of initial velocity

1
0= g T 2 +u y T +h
2

1
T=
(−u ± u −4( )gh )
√ 2 y
2
y

1
2( g)
2

(−u y ± √u 2y −2 gh )
T=
g
T > 0 as it is the time of flight after the projectile is launched. Therefore,

(−u y + √u2y −2 gh )
T=
g
4
(2) into ( 4)

(−u sin θ+ √ u2 sin2 θ−2 gh )

T=
g
5
Projectile motion propounds that x-velocity is constant during flight, and so

S x =u x T
6
( 1 ) into ( 6 )
S x =u cos θ T
7
(5) into (7)

PAGE 2
 ( −u sin θ+ √ u2 sin 2 θ−2 gh )
S x =u cos θ × ( g )
8

(−u sin θ+ √ u2 sin2 θ−2 gh )

S x =u cos θ ×
g
9

This is the theoretical relationship between initial velocity and displacement in the x-
direction.

Evaluation and analysis of projectile

motion
To apply the theory of projectile motion, certain
conditions need to be met. It is assumed that the only
force acting upon a projectile is gravity and thus it has a
constant acceleration. (journal) This assumes that the
resistance of the air on a projectile is 0 . In actuality, the
air does impose a force on the projectile in the opposite
direction to which it is travelling, significantly inhibiting Figure 3. Diagram showing the effect of curvature of the
the accuracy of the theory. With the inconstant earth on projectile motion. P0 is the initial position of the

deceleration of air resistance, the horizontal velocity is projectile, P1is the final position, h is the unaccounted-for
height difference due to the curvature of the earth?
not constant, contradicting what was said in Introduction.

When dealing with projectile motion, the curvature of the earth is considered negligible.
As the earth is curved, the starting height of a projectile thrown from the ground is not
the same height at which the projectile lands. (illustrated in Fig. 3) As the horizontal range
increases, the height difference increases until it reaches its maximum and reduces again.
Consequently, this effect is negligible when dealing with short distances. Additionally, the
force of gravity is pointed towards the centre of the earth, this means that at different
points on the earth, the acceleration due to gravity relatively differs in direction. The
theory of projectile motion considers gravitational acceleration constant, it is always
directed downwards.

Role of technology in the development of the theory of

projectile motion
This practical utilises a ramp setup alongside a ball acting as a projectile to test the
hypothesis as seen in Aim. By using a small-scale model like this, the effects of the
curvature of the earth are made negligible, as the height difference due to the curvature of
the earth between the launching and landing positions of the ball is very small By doing
this, we minimise the inaccuracy caused by the assumptions that gravitational
acceleration is constant and that the height difference in Fig.3 is negligible.

PAGE 3
The technology used was positioned indoors, away from any open windows and wind
sources to minimise the effects of air resistance. Although there was still some normal
force causing resistance, the ball was not greatly affected as it was chosen to have a high
mass to surface area ratio; minimising this opposing force.

Aim
To determine the relationship between the initial velocity of a projectile and its horizontal
distance travelled in the X-direction.

Hypothesis
As the initial velocity of the projectile increases, the displacement in the x-direction will
increase in conjunction with equation (9)

Material list:
Item Quantity
Metre Ruler 1
Aluminium Inclined Plane 1
Round Bouncy Ball (2cm in diameter) 1
Camera/Phone able of recording 240 frames per second slow motion 1
Round Indian yoghurt box (1L capacity) 1
A3 Paper checkerboard background (1.4cm by 1.4cm checkers) 4
Tripod 1
Blu-Tack 10cm *
1cm
Clear Cello brand Sticky Tape 1 Roll
50 ×50cm cardboard 1
Scissors 1
String 7cm
20g Weight to attach to string 1
Computer with Adobe ® Premiere Pro® 3
*Adobe and Premiere Pro are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe in the US and/or other countries

Method
The aluminum inclined plane was adjusted to an angle of 45 degrees with its base and
ramp. The yoghurt box was then placed on its side and cut in half (at 6cm from the base of
the box) Subsequently, the yoghurt box was attached to the inclined plane with tape such

PAGE 4
that the open side faced upwards, and the ball could roll from the ramp down to the
yoghurt box and be released. The wall-facing side of the yoghurt box was taped onto a
piece of cardboard cut to be 10cm *12cm wide and then this cardboard piece was adhered
to the wall using blu-tack for stability. The checkerboard backgrounds were aligned
horizontally and attached to the wall using blu-tack in a 2-page wide by 2-page long
configuration. The string was tied to the 20g weight and then hung over the rightmost
edge of the yoghurt box, perpendicular to the ground. The angle between the string and
the rightmost edge of the yoghurt box was measured and recorded with a transparent
protractor. Afterwards, the camera was positioned 1.2 m away from the ramp setup
perpendicular to the ground. The experiment was positioned away from windows and
other sources of wind. A horizontal 1 meter ruler was adhered to the wall using blu-tack,
this was positioned 1cm above the top of the checker-background set up, ensuring that the
full ruler was visible in the viewfinder of the camera. The ball was rolled from different
heights along the starting ramp to change the initial velocity, sometimes, the initial
velocity was increased by using force when pushing it down the ramp. At 1-minute
intervals, a 240 fps slow motion recording was taken, recording the iterations that the ball
was launched. After each trial, the ball was passed back to the same thrower and was
rolled again. After conducting 30 trials, the experiment was packed up and the recording
was transferred to a computer by uploading the videos to google drive. After downloading
the videos to the three group member’s laptops, the videos were imported into the
software Adobe® Premiere Pro®. For each time the ball was launched, its position was
recorded a fixed time after launch, this was restricted to be between 6 and 30 frames
(wherever the ball was over a clean intersection of horizontal and vertical checkers). After
this was recorded, its x-position in terms of horizontal checkers was measured at the point
it hit the ground, giving it’s x-displacement. These were all recorded into a shared
Microsoft Excel document and shared amongst group members.

Results
After each experiment was conducted, the 240fps slow motion videos were analysed and
the following data was collected to find the initial velocity.

This initial velocity was calculated by using an instantaneous velocity calculation

approach. A set number of frames after launching the projectile, it’s position in both the x
and y-axis’ was measured.

We know that,

Δs
v= (Reference )
Δt
10
Let h be the height of the projectile after time t in terms of 1.4cm high checkers, to convert
to cm, we multiply by 0.014 m.

S y =0.014 h

PAGE 5
Let w be the height of the projectile after time t in terms of 1.4cm wide checkers, to
convert to cm, we multiply by 0.014 m.

S x =0.014 w

So the total displacement can be found using Pythagoras Figure 4. Position in terms of w
theorem, as seen in figure 4. (x direction squares) and h (y-
2 2 direction squares.
Δ s=√ ( 0.014 w ) + ( 0.014 h )
11

(11) into ( 10 )

2 2
v=
√( 0.014 w ) +( 0.014 h )
Δt
12

We know that the video is recorded at 240fps, that is

240 Frames=1 s
1
1 Frame = s
240
So, Δt in terms of frames:

F
Δt=
240
13
where F is the number of frames.

( 13 ) into (12)
2 2
v=
√( 0.014 w ) +( 0.014 h )
F
( )
240
2 2
240 √ ( 0.014 w ) + ( 0.014 h )
v=
F
In this case, v is our initial velocity, let us call this u

PAGE 6
 2 2
240 √ ( 0.014 w ) + ( 0.014 h )
u=
F
14

Observations

From the data in Table 2 and Fig.5 below, it is observed that as the initial velocity of the
projectile increases, its displacement in the x direction also increases. This relational data
however does not fully support the hypothesis as even after removing outliers, the
experimental displacement values are not consistent with the theoretical predictions. It is
noticed that the difference between the theoretical predictions and experimental data
increases when the initial velocity is ≈ 1.5 m s−1 and these results were all measured by the
same group member. There are also limited trials with initial velocities less than 1 m s−1 ,
possibly inhibiting the efficacy of the data. Additionally, there were several issues
encountered when conducting the experiment. The checker background and cardboard
stands would not stick effectively to the wall using cello tape, so the checker background
would often fall off the wall and have to be reapplied, this may have caused minor
inaccuracies as the paper may not have been stuck back on to the wall at the same angle it
was originally.

When the ball was rolling down the ramp, it often bounced up and down shaking the
launch platform, sometimes, when the ball was exiting the ramp, the ramp bounced back
up after the ball had bounced down on it, adding an additional initial force. It should be
noticed that the rolling of the ball on the ramp and the bouncing of the ramp did not
damage the setup in any way. Upon examination of the video clips, the yoghurt-box
launching setup was in the same position on the wall whenever the ball was rolled. The
measurements to calculate the initial velocity were taken after the ball had left the ramp,
not needing to consider any of these effects of the ramp on the ball and additional forces
that may be caused therewith. As such, they were not included in the calculation of the
projectile’s initial velocity.

Table 1. Results of ball and ramp experiment, initial velocity calculated using (14)

PAGE 7
 Vertical Horizontal Initial Velocity (m s−1) x-distance (m)
Frames (checkers) (checkers)
22 7 4 1.231326638 16
20 9 8 2.022987889 36
16 7 5 1.806488306 36
12 6 4 2.019108714 33
14 9 4 2.363725872 32
14 7 6 2.21269067 45
15 7 6 2.065177958 41
11 8 2 2.518842709 45
11 7 4 2.462653276 45
20 12 4 2.125050588 34
6 2 2 1.58391919 32
8 3 3 1.781909089 34
8 3 3 1.781909089 33
12 4.5 3 1.514331536 36
12 3.5 4 1.488220414 15
30 8 10 1.434299829 28
22 6 7 1.408075881 43
14 5 3.5 1.464786674 31
29 6 8 1.15862069 26
11 2.5 5 1.707542819 25
24 2 3 0.504777179 10
30 7 11 1.460301339 37
29 7 8 1.231630687 29
29 6 9 1.253239892 31
29 11 9 1.646709398 41
23 11 6 1.830464319 37
30 5 13 1.559979487 43
30 10 10 1.58391919 41
30 4 13 1.523364697 36
23 5 9 1.504057273 37

Frames Vertical Horizontal Initial Velocity x-distance Theoretical Prediction

(Checkers) (Checkers) (m s−1) (m) (m s−1)
22 ± 1 7 ± 0.1 4 ± 0.1 1.2313 ± 0.0001 0.224 ± 0.001 0.21103 ± 0.00001
20 ± 1 9 ± 0.1 8 ± 0.1 2.023 ± 0.0001 0.504 ± 0.001 0.45758 ± 0.00001

PAGE 8
 16 ± 1 7 ± 0.1 5 ± 0.1 1.8065 ± 0.0001 0.504 ± 0.001 0.3804 ± 0.00001
12 ± 1 6 ± 0.1 4 ± 0.1 2.0191 ± 0.0001 0.462 ± 0.001 0.45612 ± 0.00001
14 ± 1 9 ± 0.1 4 ± 0.1 2.3637 ± 0.0001 0.448 ± 0.001 0.59452 ± 0.00001
14 ± 1 7 ± 0.1 6 ± 0.1 2.2127 ± 0.0001 0.63 ± 0.001 0.53147 ± 0.00001
15 ± 1 7 ± 0.1 6 ± 0.1 2.0652 ± 0.0001 0.574 ± 0.001 0.47351 ± 0.00001
11 ± 1 8 ± 0.1 2 ± 0.1 2.5188 ± 0.0001 0.63 ± 0.001 0.66324 ± 0.00001
11 ± 1 7 ± 0.1 4 ± 0.1 2.4627 ± 0.0001 0.63 ± 0.001 0.63792 ± 0.00001
20 ± 1 12 ± 0.1 4 ± 0.1 2.1251 ± 0.0001 0.476 ± 0.001 0.49661 ± 0.00001
6±1 2 ± 0.1 2 ± 0.1 1.5839 ± 0.0001 0.448 ± 0.001 0.30882 ± 0.00001
8±1 3 ± 0.1 3 ± 0.1 1.7819 ± 0.0001 0.476 ± 0.001 0.37211 ± 0.00001
8±1 3 ± 0.1 3 ± 0.1 1.7819 ± 0.0001 0.462 ± 0.001 0.37211 ± 0.00001
12 ± 1 4.5± 0.1 3 ± 0.1 1.5143 ± 0.0001 0.504 ± 0.001 0.28803 ± 0.00001
30 ± 1 8 ± 0.1 10 ± 0.1 1.4343 ± 0.0001 0.392 ± 0.001 0.28042 ± 0.00001
22 ± 1 6 ± 0.1 7 ± 0.1 1.4081 ± 0.0001 0.602 ± 0.001 0.26504 ± 0.00001
14 ± 1 5 ± 0.1 3.5 ± 0.1 1.4648 ± 0.0001 0.434 ± 0.001 0.25773 ± 0.00001
29 ± 1 6 ± 0.1 8 ± 0.1 1.1586 ± 0.0001 0.364 ± 0.001 0.27369 ± 0.00001
11 ± 1 2.5± 0.1 5 ± 0.1 1.7075 ± 0.0001 0.35 ± 0.001 0.19316 ± 0.00001
30 ± 1 7 ± 0.1 11 ± 0.1 1.4603 ± 0.0001 0.518 ± 0.001 0.34761 ± 0.00001
29 ± 1 7 ± 0.1 8 ± 0.1 1.2316 ± 0.0001 0.406 ± 0.001 0.06474 ± 0.00001
29 ± 1 6 ± 0.1 9 ± 0.1 1.2532 ± 0.0001 0.434 ± 0.001 0.27241 ± 0.00001
29 ± 1 11 ± 0.1 9 ± 0.1 1.6467 ± 0.0001 0.574 ± 0.001 0.21111 ± 0.00001
23 ± 1 11 ± 0.1 6 ± 0.1 1.8305 ± 0.0001 0.518 ± 0.001 0.21656± 0.00001
30 ± 1 5 ± 0.1 13 ± 0.1 1.56 ± 0.0001 0.602 ± 0.001 0.32823 ± 0.00001
30 ± 1 10 ± 0.1 10 ± 0.1 1.5839 ± 0.0001 0.574 ± 0.001 0.38859 ± 0.00001
30 ± 1 4 ± 0.1 13 ± 0.1 1.5234 ± 0.0001 0.504 ± 0.001 0.3016 ± 0.00001
23 ± 1 5 ± 0.1 9 ± 0.1 1.5041 ± 0.0001 0.518 ± 0.001 0.30882 ± 0.00001
Table 2. Results with uncertainties added and outliers removed.

By use of uncertainties, the accuracy of the measuring tools is accounted for in Table 2. To
account for possible measurement error, an uncertainty corresponding to the level of
accuracy of the measuring instrument in decimal place value was added. This method is
used to judge whether measurements are discrepant or consistent with theoretical
predictions (Allain, 2002)

The outliers of the data have been

Initial Velocity vs Displacement-X removed through inter-quartile
methods, leaving the table with the
Displacement in X-direction (m)

0.7
0.6
most relevant data.
0.5
Experiment
0.4 al Result
0.3
Discussion
Theoretical
0.2
0.1
0 PAGE 9
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Initial Velocity (m/s)
From Figure 5. It is apparent that there is a correlation between the initial velocity of a
projectile and its distance travelled in the x-direction. The experimental results do not
support the theoretical relationship in equation (9) as they only agree with the general
positive trend of the prediction, there is a large discrepancy, and the experimental data
does not model the theoretical results perfectly.

To evaluate the validity of projectile motion theory, we must first discount any outliers or
systematic error to avoid factoring in experimental anomaly. This has been calculated and
a new set of results is used, as seen in table 2.

The error of the experiment can be divided into two categories, experimental error, and
theoretical shortcomings.

Experimental Error Figure 5. Initial velocity against theoretical and experimental range
The results in table X show that
the experimental displacement was consistently greater than the theoretical prediction
but the correlation between the increase of initial velocity and displacement was still
shown. As the results were consistently high but still supported the same trend, there was
a constant error with the calculation of initial velocity. To find initial velocity, the video
was analysed by frame and the position of the ball was referenced with the checker
background. This limited the position to be represented in intervals of 1.4cm, giving an
uncertainty of ± 1.4cm per calculation as seen in Table(2). Additionally, these checker
positions were calculated by sight, often rounding up
to the nearest square. By way of this, the
experiment’s precision is inhibited, increasing the
likelihood of error and skewing the initial velocity to
be higher than it really is.

When observing the videos to calculate position, it

was noticed that the weight of the ball often
flattened the launch platform of the projectile. This
is apparent in fig.6. As the ball flattened the edge of the yoghurt box, the triangle formed
by the tangent at launch and the ground in Fig.7 was altered, implying that,

θ1 >θ2
Figure 6 Real Launch Angle (LEFT) Measured Angle
(RIGHT)

As the launch angle of the projectile is 90 °−θ ,

90 °−θ 1< 90° −θ2

Figure 7. Comparison of launch angles of actual
launch platform (left) and measured launch
That is,
platform (right) whereϕ 1 is the actual launch
angle and ϕ 2is the measured launch angle.

PAGE 10
 φ 1 < φ2

Initial Velocity vs Displacement-X (updated angle)

The actual launch angle was lesser
0.9
than the measured launched
0.8
angle used. This angle was used to
0.7

Horizontal Range (m)

calculate the theoretical
0.6
predictions, so they have been Experimental
directly impacted by this error. 0.5 Result
Considering this, Figure 8. has 0.4
Forecast
been graphed with updated 0.3
predictions, lessening the initial 0.2
π π 0.1
launch angle from θ= to θ=
3 4 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
radians.
Initial Velocity (m/s)
The experimental displacement in
Figure 8. is more consistent and
supporting of the predicted displacement than in Figure 5. Thus, the data supports the
claim of validity by projectile π
Figure 8. Updated Initial Velocity vs Displacement-X using launch angle of radians.
motion theory. 4

Additionally, there is a group of data points which are higher than expected at initial
velocity ≈ 1.5 m s−1. Upon examination, it was discovered these were all measured by a
specific group member, as the data collector was inconstant, each person may have had
their own tendencies when examining the checkerboard, ultimately effecting the
horizontal range recorded. Discounting these datapoints provides us with the graph in the
figure below.

Initial Velocity vs Displacement (Discounted Data)

0.9
0.8
0.7
Displacement (m)

0.6 Experimental
Results
0.5
0.4 Theoretical
Predictions
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 PAGE 11
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Initial Velocity (m/s)
Theoretical Omissions
From Fig. 8, it is apparent that even after discounting experimental error, the theoretical
and experimental relationships are not consistent. This indicates there may be some
unaccounted factors and inaccuracies in the theoretical predictions.

The theory of projectile motion used to predict the horizontal range did not factor into
account air resistance. The normal force of air resistance is applied to the ball and thus it
has two forces acting upon it. This means the horizontal speed is inconstant and there is
not only gravitational acceleration but also drag. This would reduce the displacement in
the x-direction and reduce the time of flight. (Atkin, 1993) As the normal force of air-
resistance is correlated with the speed of a projectile,

↑ Speed ↑ Air Resistance

As projectile motion does not account for air resistance, for higher speeds, the theoretical
displacement will be greater than in practicality as there is a large normal force of air
resistance unaccounted for, (Orzel,2015). This is evident in Fig. 8; when u ≥ 2m s−1 , at a
high speed, the theoretical displacement-x is greater than the experimental results,
supporting Orzel’s claim. Alongside the results of Fig. 8, this concludes that the
hypothesis is not supported, modern projectile motion theory does not sufficiently
calculate the displacement in the x-direction from the initial velocity. Nevertheless, the
existence of a correlation between u and S x is evident. The results of the experiment show
that this relationship does not adhere to the model in equation (9)

If the experiment were to be reconducted, the issues addressed in Experimental Error of

inconstant launch angles and human error would be resolved and the assumptions of
projectile motion would be explored further, testing the effect of air resistance on the
range of the projectile, increasing the accuracy of the predictions.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the relationship between the initial velocity of a projectile and its
horizontal range in the hypothesis is of low fidelity; the experimental results and practical
analysis have opposed the hypothesis. It was found that the experimental errors of an
inconstant launch angle, low precision checkerboard distance reference system and
human error in analysis restricted the accuracy of the experiment. Additionally, the
assumptions of projectile motion, particularly pertaining to the normal force of air
resistance caused the theoretical predictions to be higher than the experimentally found
range with a greater launch velocity. When dealing with projectile motion, this can be
accounted for, and a prediction can be made with a lesser displacement. This experiment
was successful in its aim to experimentally determine the impact of initial velocity on

PAGE 12
displacement in the x-direction, as it propounds a positive and correlative relationship
between the two. The theory of projectile motion was also critically evaluated and its
applicability to real world situations was explored.

Bibliography

https://www.timeout.com/usa/news/how-to-watch-todays-historic-nasa-spacex-rocket-
launch-052720

http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jkw/phys1121_31/pdf/lecture5.pdf -fig1

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Analytical_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_(
Analytical_Chemistry)/Quantifying_Nature/Significant_Digits/Propagation_of_Error

https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/ Rhett Allain

https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/plab194/error.html

PAGE 13
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/09/29/the-annoying-physics-of-air-
resistance/?sh=6ed9ea4d718a

(many more on other document)

Jerry Mahajan 2021

ID Number: 2012659

PAGE 14