1
$\begingroup$

If I am asked to devise an experiment to find an expression for the acceleration of a uniform sphere (ball bearing) rolling down an inclined plane, as a function of the angle of incline. Hence deduce the value of $g$ within 1%.

How would I do this accurately using simple equipment such as rulers and stopwatches? I.e without motion capture or breaker circuits? I think this method will suffice, but is there a way to account for the error more precisely?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Hi and welcome to the Physics SE! Please note that this is not a homework help site. Please see this Meta post on asking homework questions and this Meta post for "check my work" problems. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 15:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is not homework $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 15:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "I think this method will suffice, but is there a way to account for the error more precisely?" I'm not sure what you mean by 'to account for the error'. An experiment needs to be sufficiently accurate in order to draw meaningful conclusions from it. Lower measuring error will lead to higher confidence intervals regarding your conclusions. Your selected method seems suitable as a starting point, though. $\endgroup$
    – Gert
    Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 16:01

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I gather that the large source of error you are worried about is the ability of the experimenter to accurately hit the start/stop button on the stopwatch at the start/stop of the ball's journey down the ramp.

What is the approximate magnitude of error we'd expect?

Before I directly answer your question, let's estimate how bad the experimental error will be (reasonably close, without actually doing the experiment).

Typical human reaction time is 2-3 tenths of a second, somewhat increasing with age. I would expect the error to be smaller at the top of the ramp (easier to synchronize with "3..2..1..go!"). I would also expect the experimenter to be able to somewhat anticipate when the ball will reach the end of the ramp (because they can see the ball rolling towards it), and these timings may even somewhat cancel each other out. So for argument's sake (not to be used as an actual estimate; that's what science is for), let's be optimistic and say the total amount of reaction error would be around 100ms. For a typical length of ramp used in such an experiment, ball bearing travel times would be on the order of 1 second (1000ms).

Thus, your reaction error is:

$\frac{val_{exp} - val_{known}}{val_{known}} = \frac{(1000+100)ms - 1000ms}{1000ms} = 10\%$

Note: When applied to a calculation of g, the above error will actually be worse, on the order of $g \pm 17\%$, left as an exercise to the reader to verify.

So, yes, a 10% error is far from your desired 1%. Can we do better?

Use a longer ramp or a shallower incline

You'd think you could just use a longer ramp or a shallower incline. Unfortunately, to get < 1% error with a 100ms (total) error, you need a 10 second roll, the length of ramp required with a shallow ($10^{\circ}$) incline is given by:

$s = v_{i}t + \frac{1}2at^2$ but since $v_{i} = 0$,

$s = \frac{1}2at^2$

And we know $t = 10 sec$ and $a = g * \sin \theta = 9.81m/s^2 * \sin 10^{\circ} = 1.703m/s^2$

$s = 85.15 m$

I imagine that ramp length would have several practical limitations.

Can we do better?

Unfortunately, not much. Given the constraints in the question regarding "ordinary" measurements with rulers and stopwatches, a typical classroom experiment of this type will have a fairly large error. Using many trials and some statistical analysis (if this is a senior high school or university-level experiment) to get a confidence interval for your experimental value might improve the analysis, but not the actual error. Put another way, no math is capable of going back in time and pushing that stopwatch button for the experimenter. Plus, you asked how to improve the experiment, not the analysis.

However, as a teaching tool, that error is actually a rather valuable part of the experiment. It's one of those rare experiments where the value you're trying to measure (g) is very well known, and the sources of error are at the same time significant, but also easy to imagine, and not too difficult to estimate.

Remember, science isn't just about results. It's about questions. (Right, well, tell that to my grant application reviewers.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ According to my university, it is possible to get within 1%. Perhaps the method I linked is wrong $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ With enough careful trials, you might get an average value within 1% of 9.81 m/s^2 (or whatever g is where you live), but getting a 1% error is another thing, without some mechanical assistance with timing. A 1% error in timing (note since it's $t^2$ in the equation, it's actually even harder) for a 1 second travel time is 10ms, or 0.01 seconds, or (mean) 0.005sec per button press. Some of the best precision button pushers in the world (competitive video gamers) cannot reliably do "frame perfect" inputs, which have a required precision of about 0.017 sec, after months to years of practice. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 17:30
  • $\begingroup$ If the reaction error was 100ms, how does that impact the deduced value of g? Why is 'average value' different? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 18:09
  • $\begingroup$ With a ~1 second roll, a 100ms total timing error would result in approximately 17% error (see my updated answer). The value you get in your experiment (an average of the trials) is meaningless without knowing the precision (error) of that number. Let's say your trials average out to exactly 9.811m/s^2 in Seattle. That's great, right? You're within 1% of the known value, right? Unfortunately, no. What was your error? A 10% error (for example) in g means your value is $9.811 \pm 0.981 m/s^2$. That means the real value could be 8.83 or 10.79, or anything in between. You can't say for sure. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ Also, when you are finding $g$, be careful not to conclude anything based on the "known" value of $g$! This may sound strange, but (virtually always) experiments do not succeed or fail based on how close they come to an accepted value in a book. Instead, experiments' success is based on the design, apparatus, and accurate performance of said experiment. If your well-designed experiment finds $g = 8.0 \pm 0.01 m/s^2$, and that experiment was repeatable by anyone, then you must conclude that the accepted value is wrong! $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 22, 2015 at 19:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.