Downloaded from www.clastify.

com by Ashtav Arun

PHYSICS INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

How does increasing height affect the rotational energy of a ball when
it rolls down a ramp?

INTRODUCTION
‘Energy’ is a concept that pervades most, if not all of the physics topics that I am learning in class. I
always seem to be working with some form of energy as I practice my physics questions. It seems to me
then, that energy is an important, universal concept in Physics, that has potential to be explored in a

om
number of ways. Personally, I am especially interested in the conservation of energy. I like to see in real

l.c
life how the energy of an object is conserved, by way of transforming from one type of energy to

ai
another. I thought that I might be able to see this happen by looking at the relationship between
gm
gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. Theoretically, if a ball were held above the earth at a
@
certain height, it would have a certain amount of gravitational potential energy, and that energy should
un

all convert into that same amount of kinetic energy once the ball reaches ‘0’ height. But, is it possible
ar

that this relationship might not play out perfectly in the real world? Perhaps if it had mysteriously lost
av

some energy along the way? Were there other forms of energy that could ‘steal’ from this theoretically
ht
as

perfect transformation of energy? This is where rotational energy comes in, which is a form of energy I
hadn’t even learnt about until this investigation.
y
tif
as

BACKGROUND
Cl

The conservation of energy states that “the total energy of a closed system remains constant. Energy is
neither created nor destroyed. It could only be transformed from one form to another.” (Khan
Academy, 2018). The relevant energies being explored in this investigation are gravitational potential
1 2
energy (𝑚𝑔ℎ), kinetic energy ( 2 𝑚𝑣 ) and rotational energy. As stated by the conservation of energy,
1 2
gravitational potential energy (GPE) = kinetic energy (EK), or 𝑚𝑔ℎ = 2
𝑚𝑣 . That is, when an object
is held at a certain point above the surface of the earth, it has a GPE (which is equal to its mass in
kilograms × gravitational field (9.81ms-2) × height above the earth in metres). When the ball is
dropped from its height, all of the GPE transforms to EK, and the ball’s EK at the surface of the earth =
its initial GPE. However, it would be slightly different if instead of dropping the ball from the air, the
ball was released to roll down a ramp. Because with a ramp, there are other forms of energy at play,
including rotational energy, which is the energy due to the rotation of the object. So, the rotational

1
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

energy of a ball can be measured by first seeing if there is a difference between the Expected velocity and
Calculated velocity (since they should be equal if there was no energy ‘lost’ along the way down the
1 2
ramp). If there is a difference, then that can be substituted into the EK equation 2
𝑚𝑣 to find the
rotational energy of the ball, which theoretically would increase with increasing heights because the
ball would roll more if it had more ramp runway to roll on.

HYPOTHESIS
When investigating the rotational energy produced by a ball rolling down a ramp from different
vertical heights, it is predicted that as height increases, the rotational energy of the ball will increase.
This is essentially because the ball will be rolling faster from increasing heights, simply because it has
more ramp runway to roll down. The relationship between height and rotational velocity is predicted

om
to be linear.

l.c
ai
gm
VARIABLES
@
un

Independent: The vertical height between the ball’s position on the ramp and the table.
ar
av
ht

I used a metre ruler to measure heights of 10cm, 15cm, 20cm, 25cm, 30cm and 35cm from the table to
as

the ramp. I marked the point on the edge of the ramp corresponding to each height, and ruled a
y

straight line across from the marked point to the tracks (2 rulers side by side) on the ramp. The
tif

increments on the rulers of the tracks then became helpful, as I could see exactly where to place the ball
as

before letting it roll down for the 5 trials for each height. (The Expected velocity goes hand in hand
Cl

with the independent variable, as it only relies on the different starting heights of the ball.)

Dependent: The ball’s rotational energy.

Rotational energy is measured by the difference between Expected and Calculated velocity. The
Calculated velocity is then also a part of the Dependent variable, as it relies on the measured horizontal
distance travelled by the ball with different starting heights on the ramp. So the quantity being
measured here (which will be later processed) is the horizontal distance travelled by the ball after
leaving the ramp.

2
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

Controlled Variable Method of Control Possible Effect on Results

Same ball Same ball used. This keeps the mass of the ball constant, and the amount
of friction that the ball experiences constant (which is a
limitation of the experiment in itself, however, it is better
to keep this limitation consistent rather than variable).

Same ramp Same ramp used. This also keeps the limitation of friction constant, that is,
the same ramp keeps the frictional force constant
throughout (instead of changing ramp surfaces = changing
frictional forces), and it is better to keep the limitation
consistent rather than variable. And, this will also affect
how far the ball will horizontally travel after leaving the

om
ramp.

l.c
ai
APPARATUS gm
● Ramp
@
un

● Metre ruler x3
ar

● Plastic Tub
av

● Glu-Tak
ht

● Ball
as

● Pencil
y
tif

● Carbon paper
as

● Butcher paper
Cl

● Fishing line
● Small weight
● Tape
● Measuring clamp

3
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

METHOD

Setup
1. Prop up the ramp on the plastic tub, and position it so that the end of the ramp is slightly away
from the edge of the table. Glue tack two metre rulers to a ramp, parallel to each other, to form
a track for the ball (to ensure it rolls down in a straight line, and not fall off the ramp).
2. Position the carbon paper overlaid on the butcher paper to the general area where the ball will
hit the floor after coming down the ramp.
3. Tie the small weight to the fishing line and tape the fishing line to the edge of the table (at the
bottom of the ramp), where the weight hangs just above the ground.
Experiment
4. Measure a height of 10cm from the table to a point on the ramp. Mark this point on the ramp

om
with a pencil, and draw a straight line, perpendicular to the ramp, from that point to the

l.c
tracks.

ai
5. Position the ball at the corresponding point on the tracks that is 10cm above the table. Ensure
the ball’s centre of mass is above the marked line.
gm
@
6. Let go of the ball, and catch it after it bounces off the carbon paper.
un

7. Measure the horizontal distance between the hanging weight and the mark made on the
ar

butcher paper from the carbon paper.

av

8. Repeat steps 4-7 4 times for a total of 5 trials.

ht

9. Repeat steps 4-8, increasing the height of the ramp (from the table) by 5cm increments (10cm,
as

15cm, 20cm, 25cm etc.).

y
tif
as
Cl

Figure 1: Setting up the ramp Figure 2: Positioning the ball at the marked point
Source: Candidate Source: Candidate

4
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

Risk assessment
The wooden ramp may contain splinters, so it should be handled carefully. The long metre rulers
should be carried around and used in a safe and careful manner. In addition, it is necessary to catch the
ball after it bounces on the carbon paper, so remove any tripping hazards that may be in the way. Agile
and brisk footwork is required, especially when the ball is released from greater heights, as the ball will
roll down quite quickly and the experimenter must be ready to catch it as it flies forward after the first
bounce.

RESULTS
Raw Data
Table 1: Raw Data

om
Mass of ball (kg) 0.094 ± 0.001

l.c
ai
Height from table to ground (m) 0.93 ± 0.01
gm
Diameter of ball (m) 0.0471 ± 0.0002
@
un

Radius of ball (m) 0.0236 ± 0.0001

ar
av
ht

ANALYSIS
as

Table 2: Measuring the Horizontal Distance Travelled after leaving the ramp
y

Height (m) Horizontal Distance Travelled (m)

tif

of ramp above after leaving the ramp Average Uncertainty (m)

as

table (m) (±)

Cl

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

0.100 ± 0.002 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.01

0.150 ± 0.002 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.02

0.200 ± 0.002 0.71 0.70 0.71 0.68 0.69 0.70 0.02

0.250 ± 0.002 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.01

0.300 ± 0.002 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.01

0.350 ± 0.002 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.02

𝑚𝑎𝑥−𝑚𝑖𝑛
* Horizontal Distance uncertainty was calculated using 2
of the 5 trials for each height.

5
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

Calculating the ‘Expected’ Velocity

Sample calculation for first data point:
1
If mgh = 2
mv2 , due to the conservation of energy,
1 2
gh = 2
v
v= 2𝑔ℎ
v = 2 × 9. 81 × (0. 100±0. 002 + 0. 0236±0. 0001) = 1.56 ms-1± 0.03
Where the height equals the height of the ramp above the table + the ball’s radius.

Table 3: The Expected Velocity for each height

Height of ramp above table Total Height + ball’s radius Expected Velocity (ms-1)

om
(m) (m)

l.c
0.100 ± 0.002 0.1236 ± 0.0021 1.56 ± 0.03

ai
gm
0.150 ± 0.002 0.1736 ± 0.0021 1.85 ± 0.02
@
un

0.200 ± 0.002 0.2236 ± 0.0021 2.09 ± 0.02

ar

0.250 ± 0.002 0.2736 ± 0.0021 2.32 ± 0.02

av
ht

0.300 ± 0.002 0.3236 ± 0.0021 2.52 ± 0.02

as

0.350 ± 0.002 0.3736 ± 0.0021 2.71 ± 0.02

y
tif
as
Cl

Calculating the ‘Calculated’ (Actual) Velocity

Calculations for this velocity refer to the ball’s velocity at the bottom of the ramp.

Sample calculation for first data point:

𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
Velocity = 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
, where
d = horizontal distance travelled after leaving the ramp, and
t = time taken for the ball to fall in the air (from leaving the table to hitting the ground).
t is constant for each trial, as the ball takes the same time to vertically travel from the ramp to the floor.
1 2 1 2
t can be calculated using 𝑠 = 𝑣𝑡 − 2
𝑎𝑡 , where 𝑠 = 2
𝑎𝑡 as vt = 0, and s is the height of the table.
1 2
If 𝑠 = 2
𝑎𝑡 ,

6
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

𝑠 0.93±0.01
𝑡= 1 = 1 = 0.435 ± 0.005 s
2
×𝑎 2
×9.81
0.47± 0.01
Therefore velocity = 0.435±0.005
=1.09 ± 0.03 ms-1

**the non-rounded value for the average distance and time travelled is used in the above calculation

Table 4: The Calculated Velocity for each height

Horizontal Distance (m) Time taken (s) Calculated Velocity (ms-1)

0.47 ± 0.01 1.09 ± 0.03

0.59 ± 0.02 1.36 ± 0.06

om
0.70 ± 0.02 1.60 ± 0.06
0.435 ± 0.005

l.c
0.77 ± 0.01 1.77 ± 0.04

ai
0.85 ± 0.01
gm 1.94 ± 0.04
@
un

0.92 ± 0.02 2.12 ± 0.07

ar
av
ht
as

Calculating Rotational Energy from Velocity Difference

y
tif

Sample calculation for first data point

as

Velocity Difference = Expected Velocity - Calculated Velocity

Cl

1. 56±0. 13 − 1. 09±0. 03 = 0. 47±0. 16 ms-1

**the non-rounded value for the Expected and Calculated velocity is used in the above calculation

1 2
Rotational Energy = 2
𝑚𝑣 , where 𝑣 = Velocity Difference.
1 2
Rotational Energy = 2
× 0. 094±0. 001 × (0. 47±0. 16) = 0. 010±0. 003

7
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

Table 5: The Rotational Energy for each height

Height of ramp Expected Calculated Velocity Rotational

above table Velocity (ms-1) Velocity (ms-1) Difference (ms-1) Energy (J)
(m)

0.100 ± 0.002 1.56 ± 0.03 1.09 ± 0.03 0.47 ± 0.06 0.010 ± 0.003

0.150 ± 0.002 1.85 ± 0.02 1.36 ± 0.06 0.48 ± 0.08 0.011 ± 0.004

0.200 ± 0.002 2.09 ± 0.02 1.60 ± 0.06 0.49 ± 0.08 0.011 ± 0.004

0.250 ± 0.002 2.32 ± 0.02 1.77 ± 0.04 0.55 ± 0.06 0.014 ± 0.003

0.300 ± 0.002 2.52 ± 0.02 1.94 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.06 0.016 ± 0.003

om
0.350 ± 0.002 2.71 ± 0.02 2.12 ± 0.07 0.59 ± 0.08 0.016 ± 0.005

l.c
ai
Rotational Energy is able to be inferred from the difference in velocities, as, due to the conservation of
gm
energy, this experiment assumes that the ball’s GPE at the top of ramp equals the EK at the end of the
@

ramp.
un
ar

GRAPH (Source: Candidate)

av
ht
as
y
tif
as
Cl

8
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

* the rotational energy values displayed on the graph are non-rounded

The graph shows that there is a strong linear relationship between rotational energy and the height that
the ball is dropped from on the ramp. This is due to the increased rotations of the ball from increased
heights, simply because there is more ramp ‘runway’ for the ball to roll down.

Explanation using proportionalities:

If
Expected Velocity ∝ 2𝑔ℎ
Expected Velocity ∝ ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡.

om
And

l.c
𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
Calculated Velocity ∝

ai
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

Where Horizontal Distance ∝ ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (because

1
2
gm
2
𝑚𝑣 ∝ 𝑚𝑔ℎ),
@
Calculated Velocity ∝ ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡.
un
ar

And
av

1
mv2 (where v = Difference in Velocity),
ht

Rotational Energy ∝ 2
as

Rotational Energy ∝ Difference in Velocity2,

y

Rotational Energy ∝ (Expected - Calculated Velocity)2

tif
as

Since Expected Velocity ∝ ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 and Calculated Velocity ∝ ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡,

Cl

Rotational Energy ∝ height.

Therefore Rotational Energy is linearly proportional to height.

There is one point that is more removed from the trendline (third data point), but not quite to the
extent that it would be considered an outlier.

9
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

CONCLUSION
When investigating the rotational energy produced by a ball rolling down a ramp from different
heights, it was found that as height increased, the rotational energy of the ball increased, confirming the
hypothesis. This is due to the increased number of rotations the ball was able to experience with more
length of ramp to roll down, and also rotate faster, which comes with increasing height on the ramp.
The relationship is linear, so rotational energy is directly proportional to height.

The uncertainties for the rotational energy are quite large, mostly due to the larger uncertainties in the
calculated velocity, due to the uncertainties in the horizontal distance. This could be due to the ball not
being positioned exactly on the ramp where its centre of mass was directly above the marked height
each time, producing slightly different horizontal distances in the trials and hence creating the
uncertainty.

om
l.c
The rotational energy uncertainty is also in part due to the uncertainties in the expected velocity, due

ai
to the uncertainties in height. This could be due to various smaller factors: a) the metre ruler may not
gm
have been exactly straight when measuring the height of the ramp off the table, b) the ball might not
@
have been positioned in on the ramp in a way where its centre of mass was directly above the marked
un

height, and c) while an effort was made to keep the ramp sloped at the same angle throughout the
ar

experiment, sometimes the ramp was shifted slightly, so that could also affect the height. All this led me
av

to consider a 2mm uncertainty for each height measurement.

ht
as
y
tif

EVALUATION
as

Weakness Effect on Results Possible improvements

Cl

To measure the horizontal This is a random error that affects the
distance from the ball bearing accuracy and precision of results. If the
to the carbon paper mark, the ruler was slightly behind the ball bearing,
or at an angle (not perpendicular to the
ruler was removed and
edge of the table), then the horizontal
replaced with each different
distance would be slightly larger than
height. So, the ruler could’ve accurate. This would affect the calculated
changed positions slightly velocity, making it larger, making the
each time. rotational energy for that point smaller.
Perhaps this was what happened with
height 20cm, as it is the furthest from the
trendline, lying below it.
Glu-tack the metre ruler in place and do not
move it when conducting trials. The ball
technically shouldn’t bounce on the ruler
because it would land along a straight line,
coming off different heights on the ramp.
Then, I can be sure that even if a systematic
error might still exist to an extent (eg. the
ruler isn’t perfectly straight, it might not
perfectly line up with the ball bearing), it will
remove any random error from moving the
ruler between trials.

10
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

Friction of the ramp.
This is a systematic error that affects the
accuracy of the experiment. Friction is a
resistive force that could also ‘steal’ from
the theoretically perfect transformation of
potential to kinetic energy. While it was
assumed that all energy lost was due to
rotational energy, it could also be due to
friction. So, some of the rotational energy
graphed could actually be rotational
energy + the effect of friction.
Removing friction is an arduous task, but
the simplest way to combat it is using
apparatus that provide the least friction
possible. The ball I used was a smooth plastic
with a glassy texture, so as for the ball,
friction was basically minimalised. As for the
ramp, instead of wood, perhaps plastic
would be more suitable as it is smoother and
provides less friction. This would improve
the accuracy of the experiment, as the
difference between the two velocities would
then in most part be due to rotational energy
(and not so much friction).

om
Air resistance when the ball A systematic error that affects the accuracy To decrease air resistance, a smaller ball with

l.c
falls towards the ground. of the experiment, air resistance would less surface area could be used.

ai
slightly increase the time that the ball took
gm
to reach the ground. So, air resistance
would make the expected velocities
@
un

smaller, making the rotational energy

lesser.
ar
av

Uncertainty in positioning This is a random error that affects the An arbitrary method, but perhaps making a
ht

the ball with its centre of precision of the results. It was difficult to mark on the centre of the ball from where
as

mass at the exact height. eye exactly where the centre of the ball was the clamp sat to measure its diameter (and
y

directly over the marked height, and this hence its radius), and using that mark as the
tif

could be the reason for the slight variation point to always sit atop of the marked height.
as

in the distances travelled in the trials. If the This, at least, would remove any random
Cl

ball was placed slightly above the height, error.

for instance, it would travel a greater
distance, and vice versa.

Possible extensions include using variations of the apparatus, like different balls (size and material
wise), different ramps (for a changing surface), and even a different angle of ramp to see if the results
still match up. This would allow a more general relationship between height and rotational energy.
Also, the accuracy of the experiment could be generally improved if more trials were carried out for
each height, and more heights were tested (however this would also depend on how many heights that
the length and angle of the ramp allows).

11
Downloaded from www.clastify.com by Ashtav Arun

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Khan Academy. (2018, March 27). Law of conservation of energy | Work and energy | AP Physics 1 |
Khan Academy [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/HR5iEX3Sy1k

om
l.c
ai
gm
@
un
ar
av
ht
as
y
tif
as
Cl

12