PHYSICS LAB REPORT RUBRIC

Name:
Course, Lab, Problem:
Date Performed:
Lab Partners' Names:

ID#:

Possible
WUQs and Participations

Earns No Points

Earns Full Points

Possible Earned

Argument
no or unclear argument
logic does not flow
gaps in content
leaves reader with questions

complete, cogent, flowing

argument
content, execution, analysis,
conclusion all present
leaves reader satisfied

Technical Style
vocabulary, syntax, etc.
inappropriate for scientific writing
necessary nonverbal media absent
or poorly constructed
subjective, fanciful, or appealing to
emotions
jarringly inconsistent
no or confusing sections

language appropriate for scientific

writing
nonverbal media present where
appropriate, well-constructed, well
incorporated
objective, indicative, logical style
consistent
division into sections is helpful

Use of Physics
predictions unjustified
experiment physically unjustified
experiment tests wrong
phenomenon
theory absent from consideration of
premise, predictions, and results

predictions justified with physical

theory
experiment is physically sound and
tests phenomenon in question
results interpreted with theory to
clear, appropriate conclusion

Quantitativeness
statements are vague or arbitrary
analysis is inappropriately
qualitative
uncertainty analysis not used to
evaluate prediction or find result
numbers, equations, units,
uncertainties missing or
inappropriate

consistently quantitative
equations, numbers with units,
uncertainties throughout
prediction confirmed or denied,
result found by some form of
uncertainty analysis
results, conclusions based on data

Total

25

39

PROBLEM #4: MASS AN D THE ACCELERATION

OF A FALLIN G BALL
The local fire station in California has enlisted your help in stud ying the d ropping of
balls of chem icals from helicopters to extinguish forest fires. The am ount of chem icals in
one of these balls is varied d epend ing on the size of the fire. As a first s tep to your
stud y, you assum e the helicopters are stationary, hovering over a fire. You are to
d eterm ine if balls of the sam e size w ith d ifferent am ounts of chem icals w ill fall
d ifferently.
Instructions: Before lab, read the laboratory in its entirety as well as the required reading in the
textbook. In your lab notebook, respond to the warm up questions and derive a specific prediction
for the outcome of the lab. During lab, compare your warm up responses and prediction in your
group. Then, work through the exploration, measurement, analysis, and conclusion sections in
sequence, keeping a record of your findings in your lab notebook. It is often useful to use Excel to
perform data analysis, rather than doing it by hand.
Read : Knight, Jones & Field Chapter 2 Section 2.7

EQUIPMEN T
You have a collection of balls each w ith ap proxim ately the sam e d iam eter. You also
have a stopw atch, m eterstick, cam era and a com puter w ith vid eo analysis softw are.

Read the section M otionLA B & V ideoRECORDER in the Softw are append ix. You w ill be
using this softw are throughout the sem ester, so please take the tim e now to becom e
fam iliar using them .
Read the section V ideo Cameras Installing and A djusting in the Equipment append ix.
Read the append ices Significant Figures, Accuracy, Precision and Uncertainty, and
Review of Graphs to help you take d ata effectively.
If equipment is missing or broken, submit a problem report by sending an email to
[email protected]. Include the room number and brief description of the
problem.

31

MASS AND THE ACCELERATION OF A FALLING BALL 1101Lab1Prob4

WARM UP
1. Sketch a graph of instantaneous acceleration vs. time for a falling ball. N ext to this
graph sketch a graph of instantaneous acceleration vs. time for a heavier falling ball that
has the sam e size and shape. Explain your reasoning for each graph. Write d ow n an
equation for each graph. If there are constants in your equation, w hat kinem atic
quantities d o they represent? H ow w ould you d eterm ine th ese constants from your
graph?
2. Use your acceleration vs. tim e graphs to sketch instantaneous velocity vs. time graphs
for a light and heavy ball using the sam e scale for the tim e axes. Write dow n an
equation for each graph. If there are constants in your equations, w hat kinem atic
quantities d o they represent? H ow w ould you d eterm ine these constants from your
graph? Can any of the constants be d eterm ined from the equations representing the
acceleration vs. tim e graphs?
3. Use your velocity vs. tim e graphs to sketch instantaneous position vs. time graphs for
each case u sing the sam e scale for the tim e axes. Write d ow n an equation for each
graph. If there are constants in your equations, w hat kinem atic quantities d o they
represent? H ow w ould you d eterm ine th ese constants from your graph? Can any of
these constants be d eterm ined from the equations representing the acceleration vs.
tim e or velocity vs. tim e graphs?
4. H ow could you d eterm ine the acceleration of a falling ball from vid eo d ata (graphs
and equations for position and velocity)? Write d ow n an outline for how to do this,
based on your experiences in earlier problem s.
5. Do you expect that a heavier ball w ill have a higher, low er, or equal acceleration as a
lighter ball of the sam e size? Is the relationsh ip linear, or curved ? Use this to pred ict
a graph of acceleration vs. mass for falling balls.

PRED ICTION
Sketch how you expect the acceleration vs. mass graph to look for balls d ropped from rest
w ith the sam e size and shape, but having d ifferent m asses.
Do you think the free-fall acceleration increases, decreases, or stays the same as the
m ass of the object increases? Explain your reasoning. (Rem em ber that the shape of the
ball d oes not change.)

32

MASS AND THE ACCELERATION OF A FALLING BALL 1101Lab1Prob4

EXPLORATION
Review your lab journal from earlier problem s. Position the cam era and ad ju st it for
optim al perform ance. M ake sure everyone in your group gets the chance to operate the camera
and the computer.
Practice d ropping one of the balls until you can get its m otion to fill the least d istorted
part of the screen. Determ ine how m uch tim e it takes for the ball to fall and estim ate
the num ber of vid eo points you w ill get in that tim e. Are there enough points to m ake
the m easurem ent? Ad just the cam era position and screen size to give you enough d ata
points. You should be able to reprod uce the cond itions d escribed in the Pred ictions.
Although the ball m ight be the m ost obvious choice to use to calibrate the vid eo, the
im age quality d ue to its m otion m ight m ake this d ifficult. Instead , you m ight hold an
object of know n length in the plane of motion of the ball, near the center of the balls
trajectory, for calibration purposes. Where you place your reference object d oes m ake a
d ifference in your results. Check your vid eo im age w hen you put the refer ence object
close to the cam era and then further aw ay. What d o you notice about the size of the
reference object in the vid eo im age? Determ ine the best place to put the reference object
for calibration.
Step through the vid eo and d eterm ine w hich part of the ball is easiest to consistently
d eterm ine. When the ball m oves rapid ly you m ay see a blurred im age d ue to the
cam eras setup and d esign. If you cannot further d ecrease the exposure tim e of each
fram e, d evise a plan to m easure the position of the sam e part of the blur in each vid eo
fram e. You should be able to ad just the cam era settings to create non -blurred im ages of
objects in m otion.
Write d ow n your m easurem ent plan.

M EASUREMEN T
Measure the m ass of the ball and m ake a vid eo of its fall accord ing to the plan you
d evised in the exploration section. Make sure you can see the ball clearly in the vid eo.
Acquire the position of the ball in enough fram es to accom plish your analysis. Set the
scale for the axes of your graph so that you can see the d ata points as you take them.
Use your m easurem ents of total d istance the ball travels and total tim e to d eterm ine the
m axim um and m inim um value for each axis before taking d ata.
Complete your data analysis as you go along (before m aking the next vid eo), so you can
d eterm ine how m any d ifferent vid eos you need to m ake and w hat the object's m ass

33

MASS AND THE ACCELERATION OF A FALLING BALL 1101Lab1Prob4

should be for each vid eo. Dont w aste tim e collecting d ata you d on't need . Repeat this
proced ure for balls w ith d ifferent m asses. Collect enough d ata to convince yourself and
others of your conclusion.

A N ALYSIS
Using MotionLab, d eterm ine the fit functions that best represent the position vs. tim e
graphs in the x and y d irections. H ow can you estim ate the values of the constants of
each function from the graph? You can w aste a lot of tim e if you just try to guess the
constants. What kinem atic quantities d o these constants represent?
Do the sam e for the velocity vs. tim e graphs in the x and y d irections. Com pare these
functions w ith the position vs. tim e functions. Determ ine the acceleration of the ball for
d ifferent m asses. Is the average acceleration d ifferent for the beginning of the vid eo
(w hen the object is m oving slow ly) and the end of the vid eo (w hen the object is m oving
fast)?
Determ ine the average acceleration of the object in free fall for each value of its m ass
and use this to m ake a graph of the acceleration vs. m ass. Is the average acceleration of
the ball equal to its instantaneous acceleration in this case? Do you have enough d ata to
convince others of your conclu sions about your pred ictions? If the accelerations turn
out to be d epend ent on m ass, w hat m ight be the reason for the d ifference?

CON CLUSION
H ow d oes the acceleration of a freely falling object d epend on its m ass? Did the d ata
from the vid eo im ages support your pred icted relationship betw een acceleration and
m ass? (Make sure you carefully review the appendix A Rev iew of Graphs to d eterm ine if
your d ata really supports this relationship .) If your d ata d id not support your
pred iction, w ere your pred ictions w rong or w ere your results unreliable? Explain your
reasoning.
H ow d oes the acceleration you found com pare to the gravitational acceleration? Can
you explain any d ifferences? What are the lim itations on the accuracy of your
m easurem ents and analysis?

34

PROBLEM #5: LABORATORY EXTEN SION ACCELERATION OF A BALL WITH AN IN ITIAL VELOCITY
You have d esigned an apparatus to m easure air quality in your city. To quickly force
air through the apparatus, you w ill launch it straight d ow nw ard from the top of a tall
build ing. A very large acceleration m ay d estroy sensitive com ponents in the d evice; the
launch system s d esign ensures that the apparatus is protected d uring its launch. You
w ond er w hat the acceleration of the apparatus w ill be once it exits the launcher. Does
the objects acceleration after it has left the launcher d epend on it s velocity w hen it
leaves the launcher? What effect d oes the initial velocity have on the apparatus? You
d ecid e to m od el the situation by throw ing balls straight d ow n.
If you have done the previous Laboratory Extension, M otion Down an Incline with an Initial
V elocity, you can review the answers for questions 1-4 below. Questions 5-7 address the effect
of initial velocity on constant acceleration motion.
Often, physicists w ill u se w ell-u nd erstood situations to provid e reasonable evid ence for
an extension of the system . In fact, m ost experim ents in science are d esigned as an
extension of the m ost current und erstand ing of how the universe w orks.
Instead of repeating the experim ent to answ er this question, you w ill w ork w ith your
group to use the previous problem to pred ict the initial velocitys effect on acceleration.

EXTEN SION Q UESTION S

One helpful place to start is w ith lim iting cases. For this problem , w e w ill think about
w hat is expected w hen the initial velocity is either very sm all or very large.
Acceleration w ith an initial velocity:
1. If you w ere to re-analyze the vid eo from the earlier Mass and the Acceleration of a
Falling Ball, but you started taking d ata points 2 fram es into the balls m otion, w hat
w ould you expect the instantaneous velocity vs. time graph to look like? What is the
relationship betw een velocity and tim e that w ould fit the function? Write this in
your journal.
2. N ow im agine that you d ropped the ball from 50 m eters and you had a vid eo of the
entire m otion. If you started analyzing the data after the ball had fallen 45 m eters,
w hat w ould you expect the instantaneous velocity vs. time graph to look like? What is
the relationship that w ould fit this function? What is d ifferent about the sm all initial
velocity graph and the large initial velocity graph? What is sim ilar about the tw o?
3. From your tw o lim iting cases, d o you have a sufficient answ er to the pred iction? As
a check, think about one m ore case to confirm that it reasonably fits your answ er. If
you w ere to analyze the vid eo that you m ad e in Mass and the Acceleration of a
Falling Ball, but you ad vanced the vid eo to the last fram es of the m otion and then
took d ata, w ould you expect a constant acceleration or som ething else?

35

Appendix: Sample Lab Report

GOOD SAMPLE LAB

Lab II, Problem 4: Projectile Motion and Mass

Athos
July 12, 2011
Physics 1101W, Professor: Porthos, TA: Aramis

Introduction
A group of medieval warfare enthusiasts is planning a reenactment and intends to build
a trebuchet. If the reenactment is to be safe and realistic, the motion of the projectiles it
launches must be well understood. The acceleration of the projectile is constant in time,
as confirmed by a previous experiment. This experiment sought to understand the mass
dependence of that constant acceleration. To do so, the projectiles were modeled using
balls; the trebuchet, using an experimenters arm. The hypothesis that the acceleration is
mass-independent was confirmed.

Prediction
It is hypothesized that the acceleration of an object in projectile motion is massindependent; this is depicted graphically in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Horizontal and vertical components of acceleration of a projectile near Earths surface.
The acceleration of all objects moving ballistically near the surface of Earth is
downward and of a magnitude given by local g, approximately 9.8m/s , i.e. is constant
with respect to mass. Mathematically,

231

APPENDIX: SAMPLE LAB REPORT

This is an assumption of our theory of kinematics.

Procedure
Spherical balls, all of approximately the same size (in order to make approximately
constant the effects of air resistance) but of varying masses, were used to model the
projectiles. The force of the trebuchet was modeled by throwing by the experimenters.
The resulting projectile motion was recorded with a video camera; MotionLab analysis
software was used to generate (horizontal position, vertical position, time) triplets at
each frame in the trajectories and, by linear interpolation, (horizontal velocity, vertical
velocity, time) triplets between each pair of consecutive frames in the trajectories. A
meter stick was placed less than 5cm behind the projectiles plane of motion for
calibration of this software. The position and velocity of each projectile as functions of
time were fit
by eye as parabolas and lines, respectively. The acceleration of each projectile was then
taken to be the slope of the velocity fit because this was deemed more reliable than the
position fit and because it was easier to quantify the error in the velocity fit.
Two trajectories were analyzed in this fashion. Due to time constraints, the results of all
the lab groups were combined to yield enough data for the analysis. The other groups
procedures were similar, but the details are unknown.

Data
(g)

(m/s2) (low)

(m/s2) (best fit)

(m/s2) (high)

48.8

9.7

10.0

10.7

51.4

9.3

9.5

11.1

57.3

9.0

10.0

10.6

75.0

9.0

9.7

10.0

141.2

9.1

9.8

10.5

148.6

9.3

9.9

10.8

165.5

9.4

10.0

10.5

Table 1: The vertical accelerations as measured by MotionLab fits of velocity and the associated
masses. The uncertainty in all of the masses is 0.3g

232

APPENDIX: SAMPLE LAB REPORT

Analysis
The accelerations in the vertical ( ) direction as measured by the fits are given in Table 1
in the Data section. The accelerations in the horizontal ( ) direction are not given
because they are all 0. Errors were assigned to the fits by finding the maximal and
minimal values of the parameters which yield apparently valid fits. A constant, the
average of the best fit accelerations listed in Table 1, was then taken as the single
parameter in a 0-degree polynomial fit to the data. The error was taken to be the
standard deviation from this parameter. The fit is depicted in Figure 2.
As Figure 2 illustrates, the fit falls within the error of all the data points, so it is valid to
say that this has confirmed the prediction that the vertical acceleration is constant with
respect to mass.

Figure 2: The measured vertical accelerations versus the respective projectile masses and the
constant fit thereto. The errors in the masses are smaller than the markers.
Because all of the horizontal accelerations
, the hypothesis that the horizontal
acceleration of the projectiles is constant with respect to mass has been confirmed;
although there exists a nonzero uncertainty in all of these measurements, 0 lies within
all possible error intervals.

233

APPENDIX: SAMPLE LAB REPORT

Possible sources of systematic error include air resistance, distortion due to the cameras
optics, error in calibration due to the offset depth of the trajectories versus the meter
stick, and the constraint that the first frame of the balls motion was at time 0, which is
accurate only to 0.016s. These, and any other systematics, are believed to be
insignificant because the average and expected accelerations in both the horizontal and
vertical directions are consistent with the individual measurements to within
experimental error.

Conclusion
The motion of projectiles launched by trebuchets was modeled by thrown balls. The
hypothesis that the horizontal accelerations thereof are mass-independent was
confirmed in that all were measured to be 0. The hypothesis that the vertical
accelerations thereof are mass-independent was confirmed in that a single, constant
acceleration of 9.84m/s2 lay within the error intervals of all of the measured data points.

234

APPENDIX: SAMPLE LAB REPORT

BAD SAMPLE LAB

Lab II, Problem 4

Comte de Rochefort
July 12, 2011

Introduction
We want to figure out how the trebuchets projectiles will move if their mass is
changed. A trebuchet is a kind of medieval catapult that uses gravity to launch
rocks. First, we threw balls to simulate the rocks. We recorded them with a camera. Then, we
analyzed the videos using MotionLab. Then, we decided that the acceleration does not change
when the mass changes.

Prediction

Procedure
The procedure in this experiment began with setup. We collected the following materials:

meter stick

tennis ball

baseball

video camera on tripod

computer with MotionLab software

stopwatch
We then positioned the camera facing the wall. We taped the meter stick to the wall.
We next recorded the videos. We threw the tennis ball in a parabolic trajectory parallel to the
wall and recorded a video of it with the camera and computer. We did the same for the baseball.

235

APPENDIX: SAMPLE LAB REPORT

We then analyzed the videos with MotionLab. We began by setting t=0 to the time when the ball
left General Veers's hand. We then used the meter stick to calibrate the length in the video. We
defined our coordinate system. It had the origin where the ball was at t=0, x was horizontal, and
y was vertical. We then had to make predictions about the position graphs. Since there is no
acceleration in the x direction, we predicted it would be a straight, linear line. Since there is
acceleration in the y direction, we predicted it would be quadratic. We derived the coefficients
for the predictions by measuring how high and how far the ball went with the meter stick and
how long it flew with the stopwatch. The first ball flew 88+/-0.05cm in the x direction and 90+/0.05cm in the y direction, and took 0.85+/-0.005s to complete its trajectory. The second ball
flew 110+/- 0.05cm in the x direction and 60+/-0.05cm in the y direction. It took 0.86+/- 0.005s
to complete its trajectory. The predicted equations were x=0+1.054t and y=0+4.185t-4.9t2 for
the first ball and x=0+0.694t and y=0+4.185t-4.9t2 for the second ball. We then added a data
point at each frame in the balls flight. We omitted some frames near the end of the video when
the ball was in the distorted region. We took 24 data points for the first ball and 29 data points for
the second ball. We fit graphs to the resulting data points. The fits were x=0+1.05t and
y=0+3.47t-5t2 for the first ball and x=0+0.71t and y=0+4.37t-5t2 for the second ball. We then
had to predict the velocity graphs of the balls. We did this by making the t coefficient in the
position function the constant in the velocity function and the t2 coefficient in the position
function the t coefficient in the velocity function. This made the xv graph a constant line and the
yv graph a linear line. The predictions were xv=1.05+0t and yv=3.47-10t for the first ball and
xv=0.71+0t and yv=4.37-10t for the second ball. After this, we had to fit the velocity graphs to
the data points. The fits were xv-1.05+0t and yv=3.47-10t for the first ball and xv=0.71+0t and
yv=4.37-10t for the second ball. The fits were the same as the predictions, so there were no
errors in the predictions. We then got the accelerations from the coefficients of the fits. This was
0.5 of the t2 coefficient in the position fit and the same as the t coefficient in the velocity fit.
After analyzing the videos, we exchanged data with the other groups, left the lab, and analyzed
the data.

236

APPENDIX: SAMPLE LAB REPORT

Data
Ball 1
mass: 57.3+/-0.05g
x distance: 88+/-0.05cm
y distance: 90+/-0.05cm
time: 0.85+/-0.005s
x prediction: x=0+1.054t
x fit: x=0+1.05t
y prediction: y=0+4.185t4.9t2
y fit: y=0+3.47t-5t2
xv prediction: xv=1.05+0t
xv fit: xv=1.05+0t
yv prediction: yv=3.47-10t
yv fit: yv=3.47-10t

Ball 2
mass: 48.8+/-0.05g
x distance: 110+/-0.05cm
y distance: 60+/-0.05cm
time: 0.86+/-0.005s
x prediction: x=0+0694t
x fit: x=0+071t
y prediction: y=0+4.185t4.9t2
y fit: y=0+4.37t-5t2
xv prediction: xv=0.71+0t
xv fit: xv=0.71+0t
yv prediction: yv=4.37-10t
yv fit: yv=4.37-10t

Ball 3
mass: 165.5+/-0.05g
x prediction: x=0+1.126t
x fit: x=0+1.13t
y prediction: y=0+3.915t4.9t2
y fit: y=0+3.37t-4.9t2
xv prediction: xv=1.13+0t
xv fit: xv=1.13+0t
yv prediction: yv=3.37-9.8t
yv fit: yv=3.37-10t

Ball 4
mass: 51.4+/-0.05g
x prediction: x=0+0.877t
x fit: x=0+0.82t
y prediction: y=0+4.469t4.9t2
y fit: y=0+3.8t-4.7t2
xv prediction: xv=0.82+0t
xv fit: xv=0.82+0t
yv prediction: yv=3.8-9.4t
yv fit: yv=3.8-9.5t

Ball 5
mass: 141.2+/-0.05g
x prediction: x=0+1.203t
x fit: x=0+1.21t
y prediction: y=0+3.258t4.9t2
y fit: y=0+3.1t-4.9t2
xv prediction: xv=1.21+0t
xv fit: xv=1.21+0t
yv prediction: yv=3.1-9.8t
yv fit: yv=3.1-9.8t

Ball 6
mass: 148.6+/-0.05g
x prediction: x=0+1.281t
x fit: x=0+1.4t
y prediction: y=0+3.258t4.9t2
y fit: y=0+4.1t-4.95t2
xv prediction: xv=1.4+0t
xv fit: xv=1.4+0t
yv prediction: yv=4.1-9.9t
yv fit: yv=4.1-9.9t

Ball 7
mass: 75.0+/-0.05g
x prediction: x=0+0.943t
x fit: x=0+1.07t
y prediction: y=0+3.895t4.9t2
y fit: y=0+3.3t-4.85t2
xv prediction: xv=1.07+0t
xv fit: xv=1.07+0t
yv prediction: yv=3.3-9.7t
yv fit: yv=3.3-9.7t

Analysis
We calculate the accelerations from the fits because we know x = x0 + v0*t + 1/2*a*t2. All the
accelerations in the x direction are therefore 0. The accelerations in the y direction are -10m/s2,
-10m/s2, -9.8m/s2, -9.4m/s2, -9.8m/s2, -9.9m/s2, -9.7m/s2.

237

APPENDIX: SAMPLE LAB REPORT

We know that the x accelerations should be 0 because we are ignoring air resistance. We know
that the y accelerations should be -9.8m/s2. All of the y accelerations are close to this. They
differ by 0.2m/s2, 0.2m/s2, 0m/s2, 4m/s2, 0m/s2, 0.1m/s2, and 0.1m/s2; these are all small.
There are several important sources of error in this lab. One is the fisheye effect of the camera
lens. Another is the finite accuracy of the measuring devices. The stopwatch can only measure to
0.01s, and the meter stick can only measure to 0.001m, so these measurements are only accurate
to half of those values. There is error in MotionLab, too, as can be seen in the differences
between some of the position and velocity fits. There was error in that we couldnt throw the
balls exactly the same every time. Finally, there could have been human error. We know that all
of these errors were not significant, though, because all of the measurements of acceleration were
so close to the known right values.

Conclusion
We measured the acceleration of seven balls in projectile motion and got things very close to the
right values every time. We can therefore say that the mass dependence of the accelerations in
the x and y directions are both constant. In the x direction, it is 0m/s2, and in the y direction, it
is -9.8m/s2. This was true for all the masses. This is the same as our original prediction. We can
therefore say that this experiment was a success.

238