## K-1 THE ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY## Instructor's notes.[This experiment was previously numbered M-5.] This is the standard free-fall experiment using the Behr apparatus. One set-up of the apparatus is sufficient for a class of usual size. The instructor should explain the apparatus and operate it once to obtain a data tape, then let each group in turn run a tape. It takes only 3 to 4 minutes for inexperienced students to run a tape once they have seen it done. Another 30 to 40 minutes is enough to record the data from the tape into the lab notebook. The remaining time in lab may be devoted to a preliminary analysis, to obtain a value of g, to ascertain that the data is good, and the method understood. The remaining analysis can be done as homework. GRAPHICAL METHOD Many students ask whether to plot the velocities at the end, middle, or start of each time interval. I'll admit I've gotten tired of explaing that it doesn't matter, so I simply tell them to plot at the middle. Therefore I removed the following paragraphs from earlier versions of these instructions:
ANALYTIC METHODS There are more sophisticated methods of data analysis than described here. These have not been included for several reasons. The "best" methods are often somewhat obscure, and will be used by the student as "magic formulae" which happen to give the "answer." These methods are often unique to this specific experiment, and have very little transfer value to other experiments. The best methods use long time intervals, about half the time of fall, to minimize fractional error in each interval. Method 3 arose from my review of Bernard and Epp's laboratory manual, Laboratory Experiments in College Physics (5th edition, Wiley, 1980), which had committed the fatal error of recommending the "method of differences." I had contracted to review this book for the publisher. I responded as follows: ...the data analysis recommended for this experiment is defective. In step 5, the
calculation of the acceleration, the method seems to be using more data than it actually
is. The time intervals are all equal, call them Δt.
Then in the calculation of, say a
This is the inherent defect in the simple "method of differences" approach, it does not really use all of the data which are input to the equations, intermediate values cancel out. If one then goes on to step 6 and calculate the mean acceleration, all data points cancel out except the first two and the last two. I made this mistake once myself, which made me more alert to the many AJP articles which have appeared describing other methods of data reduction which do not have this defect. The flaw is hidden here because the time intervals were written in terms of the endpoints of the interval. But in most timing systems one assumes that the time intervals are indeed equal (within their experimental uncertainty). The numbers one puts into these equations will indeed give identical denominators in every case. I've gotten a few gray hairs over the years worrying about what is the best way to reduce this data. The method must also be clear enough to be understood by freshmen. The trick is to ensure that one takes data intervals long enough to have inherently low error propagation, yet statistically independent of each other (not having common endpoints). I'll suggest one that seems feasible: (1) Group the data into 16 equal time intervals Δt (instead of the 8 you suggest).
Calculate velocities over the intervals labeled 1 through 8. These will have 2Δt in the denominator, for the time interval is 2Δt. These velocities are clearly independent, for no two velocity calculations used the same position data points. Now calculate four accelerations, labeled A through D in the diagram. They will all have 4Δt in the denominator. These accelerations are clearly independent. Average them. No position data has been used twice, so there is no possibility of data cancellation in the computation. Also, from the point of view of error analysis, it gives roughly equal weighting over the whole span of the data. Apparently I wasn't sufficiently clear. Although quite a number of my other suggestions were implemented in the sixth and seventh editions of Bernard and Epp's manual, they ignored this one, and the mistaken method persists to trap new multitudes of innocent students. Oh, well. they paid me for the pre-publication review. BIBLIOGRAPHY Humphrey, Clyde L. "Analysis of the Free Fall Experiment." Heald, Mark A. "Comment On: 'Analysis of the Free Fall Experiment'." Barker, David R. and L. M. Diana. "Simple Method for Fitting Data when Both Variables
Have Uncertainties." ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS (1) On the basis of your data, calculations and graphs can you say that the acceleration of the plummet was constant? Within what experimental error?
(2) Considering the "scatter" of the individual acceleration values, and the scatter of the points on your graphs, what error estimate (in %) would you give for your value of g?
(3) Compare your value of g with that in the CRC handbook. Look up Helmert's equation in the handbook. You'll need to know that LHU is at 41° 8' North latitude, and the parking lot behind the physics is 580 feet above sea level. [You can check this data by consulting a U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey map of the Lock Haven area.] This data, used in Helmert's equation, gives you the "accepted" value of g with which to compare yours. What is the percent discrepancy between your value and the accepted value?
(4) Suppose students at the University of Alaska did this experiment with the same apparatus. Would you expect them to obtain the same numerical result you did? Be specific in explaining why or why not. What about students in the class of 2025 at Lunar Tech, on the moon?
(5) [Removed] Have you demonstrated the constancy of the acceleration due to gravity? No, you haven't. What have you demonstrated, in this experiment? Keep in mind that one should not claim more than is justified by the experiment.
(6) [Removed, difficult to evaluate responses.] In this experiment the plummet was released from rest. A clever student wants to eliminate the closely spaced and unreliable sparks at the beginning of the tape. This student designs a plummet release mechanism which gives the plummet a downward push, only during a short interval before the beginning of the spark record. This makes the plummet velocity larger at the beginning of the spark tape. The student's lab partner worries that this might affect the experimental value of the acceleration due to gravity. What effect would it have on the calculated values of velocity? What effect would it have on the calculated value of g?
QUESTIONS FROM WALL, LEVINE AND CHRISTENSEN (1) An error of 0.01% in the time intervals produced by the spark timer would produce what error in the value of the acceleration?
(2) [Calculus] If S is a quadratic function of time t, i. e., S = α + βt + γt
QUESTIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES (1) If the student plotted average velocity vs. time, at what value of time should each average velocity be plotted? At the beginning of the time interval, at the middle, at the end, or somewhere else?
(2) Construct an analytic proof, starting from Galileo's laws of motion, showing that the average velocity during a time interval is the same as the instantaneous velocity at the midpoint of the time interval.
(3) [Simanek, 1st edition. Dropped because most students can't figure it out.] What would be wrong with using the method of differences here? Show, by an appropriately chosen algebraic example, what would happen if you did this.
(4) [Simanek, 1st edition. Dropped because it's difficult to read and compare the answers students give.] Suppose that at about the middle of your spark record an unknown number of spark marks were missing. How could the experimental data be "salvaged" so all of the remaining data on both sides of the "break" could be used in the calculations. How much would this affect the accuracy of the results? (Say something more meaningful than "not much.") Discuss this for each of the methods of analysis.
GRADING CHECKLIST 1. Clear statement that the acceleration was found to be constant over the run of 1.5 meters. 2. Reasonable value of g. 3. Reasonable uncertainty estimate for g, with supporting method. 4. Questions, total three points. 5. Graph © 1998, 2004 by Donald E. Simanek. |