A-Level Physics: Practical 3

Determination of ‘g’ by free-fall through multiple methods.

Benjamin Lin

Lab Partner: Isaac Murray

Date Performed: 25/05/23

Date Submitted: 15/06/23

Introduction
The strength of Earth's gravitational field, symbolized as g and equal to 9.81 m s−2,
determines how fast objects accelerate when they fall to the ground. Our aim in this
experiment was to figure out the value of g using only basic equipment: a golf ball, a meter
ruler, and a stopwatch. Both methods used the same equipment. The first method involved
timing how long it took for the ball to drop one meter, while the second method involved
calculating the time it took for a specific number of bounces. To determine g in the second
method, we also measured the coefficient of restitution (c) under the given conditions.
Based on what we observed, the second method provided a more accurate estimate of g.

Deriving equation to get g

Since the value of g remains constant, we can use
the SUVAT equations to identify the necessary
measurements for estimating the value:

1 2
s=ut+ at
2

In this experiment s=h

u=0
a=t
so,
1 2
h= g t
The ball is placed close to the 2
metre ruler so as to avoid
parallax error. This can be rearranged to get ‘g’,

2h
g= 2
t
Methods
Assumptions:
 Air resistance is negligible Method 1
 value of c is constant. For a rough estimation of g, you can drop a golf
ball from a certain height (h) and time its fall
Equipment: until it reaches the ground. By repeating this
experiment multiple times and calculating the
 Golf ball
average, you can obtain a quick approximation of
 Metre ruler
g. However, the following method provides
 Stop clock
greater accuracy and minimizes human error.
 Flat smooth surface
Results 1:
 ‘g’= 6.16m s−2

% error= -37%

Method 2
The second method depends on working out the coefficient of restitution which can be
summed up in the equation:

c=
VA
VB √h
= 1
h0

V A =¿Rebound velocity
V =¿Impact velocity
B

h =¿drop height
0

h =¿bounce height
1

To determine the coefficient of

restitution, you drop the golf ball onto a smooth, flat surface and allow it to bounce to its
maximum height. Then, you stop the stopwatch. This process is repeated several times, and
the average value is calculated. Finally, this average value is inserted into the equation
 c=
√ h1
h0

c=
√ h1
h0
=0.91

The second method depends on understanding the coefficient of restitution (c) and the time
taken for n bounces (represented as Tn). The calculation of Tn can be accomplished using
the following geometric series formula:

T n=2
√
2 h0
g
×c×
1−c n
1−c

Since Tn is a measured value, we must rearrange the equation, similar to the first method, in
order to solve for g. As a result, we obtain the following equation:

2
8 h0c
g= 2
׿
Tn
2nd approximation of ‘g’

n=2
‘g’=6.16m s−2
% error=+37%

n=4
‘g’=12.16m s−2
% error=-24%

Discussion
When comparing the obtained results to the accepted value of g (9.81 m s−2), the second
method with a higher value of n demonstrated the highest level of precision. Conversely,
the method with a lower value of n resulted in the least accurate measurement, specifically
yielding a value of 6.16m s−2.
Despite the appearance of greater accuracy in the result obtained from the second method
compared to the first method, its validity could be questionable. The inclusion of a higher
number of bounces in the second method introduces a cumulative effect of errors during
the associated calculations. Theoretically, the initial attempt with a lower number of
bounces should have produced a result closer to the actual value. Consequently, it may not
be accurate to assert that the second method is more effective, particularly when
considering uncertainty.
Both methods' outcomes are affected by specific assumptions, including disregarding the
influence of air resistance and assuming a consistent coefficient of restitution. Due to the
current understanding of physics, it is difficult to eliminate the first assumption entirely.
However, we can improve the second assumption to convert it into a substantiated fact
when carrying out the practical experiment. To minimize any horizontal movement and
ensure the preservation of all potential energy, we can drop the ball through a tube. This
approach guarantees that the point of contact between the ball and the floor remains
constant, resulting in a constant coefficient of restitution. By reducing fluctuations in this
value, we can effectively minimize random errors in the calculation for g.
To summarize, the first method is useful for quickly obtaining a rough estimate of g, even
though it has lower precision and accuracy. On the other hand, the second method yields a
more accurate value with a lower percentage uncertainty. However, the overall uncertainty
of the second method is influenced by the number of bounces timed, which can potentially
lead to higher uncertainty. This is because the bigger the incertainty the grea