AP Physics Formal LabFinding g Using a Free Fall Apparatus Paul Greeney and Gardner Friedlander October 1, 2013

Abstract

The acceleration due to gravity, g, was measured by dropping a mass with a paper tape attached. A constant-frequency buzzer put constant time interval dots on the tape as it was pulled past, and analysis of these dots allows the experimenters to find a value for the acceleration of the object.
Theory

If the only force on an object is gravity, the object will accelerate at g: F = ma mg = ma g=a Thus, the acceleration should be constant g = 980 cm/s2. If this is the case, then the constant acceleration formulas derived in class v = vo + at and x = xo + vot + at2 should be valid. As well, the graph of velocity versus time should be a straight line with a slope equal to the acceleration, g. See the Error section below for cautions on applying this theory.
Equipment setup diagram and description

The equipment was set up in the manner described in the 2000 AP Physics Lab Manual and as pictured at right. For the discussion in Procedure below, note the difference between what is called an interval and a position measured from zero, both illustrated by using the fifth point. Also note the end of the tape called the trailing end.

Tape-trailing end Dot Timer B3 Fifth interval

Stand

. . . . . . . .

Position of fifth point, measured from zero Zero pointthe first clearly separated dot Mass

The Dot Timer was a PASCO Model ME-9283 Tape Timer, which was labeled with a sticker B3 so that the identical unit could be used for all runs.

The mass pictured is the control mass, a fifty-gram hanger. For a heavier mass, a stack of 22 twenty-gram plates and one ten-gram plate was placed on the fifty-gram hanger (total mass 500 grams). For a small mass, a 50-gram hooked mass was used.
Procedure and Analysis

The following discussion assumes that the reader has read the instructions to the laboratory (Experiment #1 in the 2000 AP Physics Lab Manual.) This discussion is about changes and enhancements made to the basic procedure described there. For each run, the tape was held by its trailing end (by one of us standing on the table) to keep it straight, minimizing flapping of the tape and the resulting friction (but, see below under error analysis.) The displacement intervals were measured (using a transparent ruler) by setting the 0.00 mark (which was not at the end of the ruler) at the center of the first dot, and then estimating the location of the center of the second dot. The center was used rather than one of the edges because it was noted that as the tape moved faster, the dots spread out. Consistently using the leading edge would result in an increasingly low interval compared to using the center, and using the trailing edge would result in an increasingly high interval. It was decided to accept the inherent increase in uncertainty involved in finding the center of the dot rather than to introduce a systematic error that would be hard to take into account. A magnifying glass was used for all of the readings to lessen the uncertainty involved. The initial tape was measured six times (by each of us on three separate days) so that we would have an independent confirmation of our uncertainty measurements. As a crosscheck, the position of the 15th point measured from zero was also measured (using a variety of meter sticks and tapes) each time, which gave us a crosscheck on the accuracy of the plastic ruler by summing the first 15 intervals. The Error Analysis below will employ this crosscheck as a correction for a possible systematic error. The details of analyzing this tape are shown below in the Data, Calculations, Graphs and Results section. For the other three tapes, each lab partner measured each interval once, and the average of these two measurements is included in the data table. As shown by the example of the first tape, differences in measurement (excluding blunders, which were corrected by the continuing crosscheck with the lab partner and not even recorded) were minor. Different masses were attached to the tape to test the relative importance of air friction on the masses and surface friction with the apparatus. In order to separate the two effects, three different masses were used: a control used for most runs (50 grams with a 4.1-cm diameter cross section), a heavy mass (500 grams with the same 4.1-cm cross section), and a small mass (50 grams with a 1.8-cm cross section). See the Results section for the outcomes, and the Error section for an analysis.

A typical calculation (the acceleration of the seventh data point) involves five different time and position measurements to calculate a single acceleration. See the spreadsheets below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9
B # 9 10 11 12 13 =B8+1 =B9+1 =B10+1 =B11+1 =B12+1 I Average =AVERAGE(C9:H9) =AVERAGE(C10:H10) =AVERAGE(C11:H11) =AVERAGE(C12:H12) =AVERAGE(C13:H13)

Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15 9.53 128.3 0.175 13.02 150.8 0.2 17.07 175.6 0.225 21.80
J Time (s) =J8+0.025 =J9+0.025 =J10+0.025 =J11+0.025 =J12+0.025 K Position (s) =K8+I9 =K9+I10 =K10+I11 =K11+I12 =K12+I13

accel. (m/s/s)

945.5

L Velocity (cm/s)

M Interval accel.

=(K11-K9)/(J11-J9) =(K12-K10)/(J12-J10) =(L12-L10)/(J12-J10) =(K13-K11)/(J13-J11)

Data, Calculations, Graphs, and Results

The actual paper tapes used in each run have been saved and are available for checking under our names in the top-right-most drawer in the AP Lab room. The following tables are imbedded Excel spreadsheets and charts; double-clicking on them allows for exploration of formulae, etc. To see details of the calculations and formulas shown, see below in the Uncertainties section.

Analysis of run #1 # Length of intervals, measured in cm

Time

Position Velocity Interval (s) 0.00 0.22 0.93 2.26 4.17 6.61 9.53 13.02 17.07 21.80 26.99 32.72 38.95 45.85 53.32 61.30 69.83 78.92 88.57 98.77 (cm/s) 18.7 40.8 64.7 87.0 107.4 128.3 150.8 175.6 198.4 218.3 239.1 262.6 287.4 309.0 330.2 352.5 374.7 396.9 accel. (m/s/s) 919 924 854 826 868 946 953 855 813 886 967 927 856 870 889 889

Run 1, with control mass, measured 6 times Average (s) 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
1 0.21 2 0.71 3 1.32 4 1.91 5 2.44 6 2.92 7 3.49 8 4.05 9 4.72 10 5.19 11 5.72 12 6.24 13 6.90 14 7.47 15 7.96 16 8.51 17 9.22 18 9.62 19 10.05 sum of61.25 15 position 61.33 15 0.23 0.73 1.30 1.91 2.45 2.90 3.48 4.05 4.71 5.17 5.73 6.26 6.88 7.47 7.96 8.50 9.22 9.61 10.06 61.22 61.32 0.21 0.73 1.34 1.89 2.44 2.92 3.49 4.05 4.73 5.17 5.71 6.24 6.88 7.49 7.96 8.53 9.21 9.62 10.07 61.27 61.34 0.23 0.71 1.30 1.92 2.43 2.92 3.50 4.04 4.72 5.20 5.72 6.23 6.89 7.45 7.95 8.49 9.21 9.63 10.04 61.20 61.34 0.22 0.71 1.33 1.91 2.42 2.90 3.48 4.07 4.72 5.19 5.73 6.26 6.92 7.45 7.95 8.51 9.20 9.60 10.03 61.26 61.35 0.21 0.71 1.32 1.90 2.44 2.90 3.51 4.05 4.74 5.20 5.72 6.26 6.90 7.47 7.95 8.53 9.23 9.60 10.03 61.29 61.32 0.22 0.72 1.32 1.91 2.44 2.93 3.49 4.05 4.73 5.19 5.72 6.23 6.90 7.47 7.98 8.53 9.09 9.65 10.20 10.76 11.31 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.275 0.300 0.325 0.350 0.375 0.400 0.425 0.450 0.475

Average acceleration 890 of 1st 16:

As mentioned above, the tape of the first run was independently measured six times. For each interval, there seems to be about a 0.02 cm. uncertainty, with no evident pattern based on day or the person doing the measuring. This justifies taking the average of the six measurements as values accurate to within the precision given, and validates the method used for the other data, as well. In the table and graph that follow (Table 1 and Graph 1, as they were called in the original experiment), the Position column was found by adding each displacement interval sequentially.
Table 1 and Graph 1

Point Time Interval Position Numbe r (s) (cm) (cm) 1 0.000 0.22 0.00 2 0.025 0.72 0.72 3 0.050 1.32 2.04 4 0.075 1.91 3.95 5 0.100 2.44 6.39 6 0.125 2.93 9.32 7 0.150 3.49 12.81 8 0.175 4.05 16.86

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

0.200 4.73 0.225 5.19 0.250 5.72 0.275 6.23 0.300 6.9 0.325 7.47 0.350 7.96 0.375 8.51 0.400 9.22 0.425 9.61 0.450 10.06

21.59 26.78 32.50 38.73 45.63 53.10 61.06 69.57 78.79 88.40 98.46

Position (cm) as a function of Time (s) y = 440.93x2 + 20.195x - 0.0697 R2 = 1 120.00 100.00 80.00

Position (cm)

60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 0.000 -20.00 Time (s)

measured 15 61.35

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

Graph 1 shows the position versus time graph. Note that the quadratic curve fit is nearperfect, (R2=1.000), another indication of self-consistent data. However, note that the sum of the first 15 intervals does not match the position of the 15th dot as measured directly in the cross-check. This is true of all of the runs; the sum of the intervals is consistently lower, by .06 to .18 cm. This indicates the possibility of a systematic error, which will be addressed in the Error section below.

Graph 2, below, plots velocity versus time. Note that the erratic behavior of the last three points is again visible, but they average near the best-fit line anyway. Graph 2a shows the same data without the last three points.
Graph 2

Point Time Velocity Number(s) (cm/s) 1 0.000 2 0.025 40.8 3 0.050 64.6 4 0.075 87.0 5 0.100 107.4 6 0.125 128.4 7 0.150 150.8 8 0.175 175.6 9 0.200 198.4 10 0.225 218.2 11 0.250 239.0 12 0.275 262.6 13 0.300 287.4 14 0.325 308.6 15 0.350 329.4 16 0.375 354.6 17 0.400 376.6 18 0.425 393.4 19 0.450 402.4
Graph 2a

500.0

Velocity as a function of tim e y = 877.16x + 20.852 R2 = 0.9989

400.0
Velocity (cm/s)

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0 0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

Tim e(s)

Note that this graph (without the last three data points) has a slightly larger slope, indicating that the erratic behavior may be partially an artifact of the experimental process and partially due to a real effect. More on this in the Error analysis below.
Velocity (cm/s)

500.0

Velocity as a function of tim e y = 890.71x + 18.71 R2 = 0.9998

400.0

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0 0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

Tim e(s)

Comparing the data runs to each other

Plotting the displacement intervals themselves is equivalent to plotting the velocities, although without the smoothing process of taking two intervals at once. To convert intervals to velocities, we would divide by 0.025, the time interval. If this were done for all of the points, we would have a velocity versus time graph as we had with Graph 2, and the slope would be the acceleration. Interval Time # (s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 sum of 15 position 15 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.225 0.250 0.275 0.300 0.325 0.350 0.375 0.400 Length of intervals, measured in cm Average 1 Run 2, Run 3, heavy small 0.22 0.84 0.51 0.72 1.44 1.12 1.32 2.08 1.72 1.91 2.66 2.25 2.44 3.29 2.83 2.93 3.91 3.41 3.49 4.48 3.99 4.05 5.09 4.54 4.73 5.71 5.07 5.19 6.30 5.68 5.72 6.95 6.26 6.23 7.46 6.84 6.90 8.16 7.37 7.47 8.74 8.18 7.96 9.45 8.42 8.51 9.93 9.28 61.28 61.35 76.56 76.89 68.19 68.39

Run 4 3.27 3.81 4.42 4.79 5.53 6.02 6.67 7.31 7.81 8.09 8.96 9.54 9.67 10.29 10.84

Run 5 0.66 1.21 1.81 2.17 2.92 3.40 4.06 4.69 5.20 5.48 6.35 6.93 7.07 7.67 8.23

Run 6 0.66 1.20 1.80 2.15 2.90 3.38 4.05 4.68 5.17 5.48 6.33 6.91 7.06 7.64 8.20

107.02 107.72

67.85 67.97

67.63 67.76

To convert intervals to velocities, we would divide by 0.025, the time interval. If this were done for all of the points, we would have a velocity versus time graph as we had with Graph 2, and the slope would be the acceleration. Thus, the slopes (and intercepts) in the trend line equations (listed to the right of the graph for each run) in the graph below can be converted to accelerations by dividing them by 0.025 seconds. This is
14 12 10 y = 22.2x - 0.35 y = 24.2x + 0.25 y = 22.7x - 0.00 y = 21.8x + 2.77 y = 21.9x + 0.16 y = 21.8x + 0.15 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 Run 1 average Run 2 (Heavy) Run 3 (small) Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Linear (Run 2 (Heavy)) Linear (Run 3 (small)) Linear (Run 1 average) Linear (Run 4)

Interval

8 6 4 2 0 0.000

Time

done for the following table.

The following table summarizes the results of the six runs, with the slope and the intercept converted to acceleration and initial velocity respectively:
Run intercept # (cm) 1 .35 2 .25 3 0.0 4 2.77 5 .16 6 .15 Vo slope (cm/s) (cm/s) 21 22.2 10 24.2 0 22.7 110 21.8 6.4 21.9 6 21.8 comment acceleration discrepancy 2 (cm/s ) 9.39% The most precisely measured run. 888 1.22% Run with a heavy mass. 968 7.34% Run with a small mass. 908 11.0% Fastest run (largest Vo) 872 10.6% 876 11.0% 872

(The negative intercept for run#1 is troublesome and will be mentioned in the error analysis.)
Uncertainty estimates

The precision of the dot timer was not given. After some discussion, and at our request, the lab instructor ran a test on the sound given off by the timer. Based on evidence of an FFT analysis which measures the frequency, it was found that a reasonable guess for the frequency was 40.0 0.5 Hz, or about 1% uncertainty. Thus an uncertainty of 1% (0.00004 s) for any time interval was used in the following analysis. (Data from the manufacturer lists the precision as 0.1%.) Based on our repeated measurements of Run #1, an uncertainty of any one displacement interval should be about 0.02 cm, which means that any one position interval would have about 0.03 cm uncertainty.
Uncertainty propagation for a typical interval (the acceleration based on calculating the 7th acceleration point for the average Run#1 data.)

Here is the original calculation:

Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15 9.53 128.3 0.175 13.02 150.8 0.2 17.07 175.6 0.225 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

945.5

With the first time raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.00004 s, which is + 4 x 10-5 s), the result drops 2 cm/s2 from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.12504 6.61 0.15 9.53 128.4 0.175 13.02 150.8 0.2 17.07 175.6 0.225 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

943.5

With the second time raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.00004 s, which is + 4 x 10-5 s), the result rises 0.8 cm/s2 from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15004 9.53 128.3 0.175 13.02 150.9 0.2 17.07 175.6 0.225 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

946.3

With the third time raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.00004 s, which is + 4 x 10-5 s), the result rises 4.9 cm/s2 from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15 9.53 128.2 0.17504 13.02 150.8 0.2 17.07 175.7 0.225 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

950.4

With the fourth time raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.00004 s, which is + 4 x 10-5 s), the result drops 0.7 cm/s2 from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15 9.53 128.3 0.175 13.02 150.7 0.20004 17.07 175.6 0.225 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

944.8

With the fifth time raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.00004 s, which is + 4 x 10-5 s), the result drops 2.8 cm/s2 from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15 9.53 128.3 0.175 13.02 150.8 0.2 17.07 175.4 0.22504 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

942.7

With the first position raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.03 m), the result rises 12.0 cm/s2 from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.64 0.15 9.53 127.7 0.175 13.02 150.8 0.2 17.07 175.6 0.225 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

957.5

With the second or fourth position raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.03 m), the result remains unchanged from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below (this can be explained mathematically by the way we calculated the acceleration):
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15 9.56 128.3 0.175 13.02 150.2 0.2 17.07 175.6 0.225 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

945.5

With the third position raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.03 m), the result drops 24.0 cm/s2 from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15 9.53 128.9 0.175 13.05 150.8 0.2 17.07 175.0 0.225 21.80 accel. (m/s/s)

921.5

With the fifth position raised by the uncertainty amount (+0.03 m), the result rises 12.0 cm/s2 from the original 945.5 cm/s2 as shown below:
Point Number 5 6 7 8 9 Time Position Velocity (s) (s) (cm/s) 0.125 6.61 0.15 9.53 128.3 0.175 13.02 150.8 0.2 17.07 176.2 0.225 21.83 accel. (m/s/s)

957.5

The total possible variation due to the estimated uncertainty is then 2 + .8 + 4.9 + .7 + 2.8 + 12.0 + 24.0 + 12.0 = 59.2 cm/s2, or about 60 cm/s2 with most of this coming from the uncertainty in position. Since the uncertainties are very possibly not independent from each other, there is no a priori reason to use the RSS calculation (which would give 30 cm/s2). This analysis explains only in part why the interval acceleration jumped around so much. For the first sixteen intervals, the acceleration for Run 1 ranged from 813 to 967 cm/s2, or about 890 70 cm/s2, in good agreement with the variation predicted in the analysis above (we may have slightly underestimated either the time or displacement uncertainty). Analysis of the average requires us to divide the uncertainty by the square root of the number of trials, = 60/ 16 = 15 cm/s2. Comparing the four control runs (runs 1,4,5, and 6) done with the same falling mass, we have results of 888, 872, 876, and 872 cm/s2, which can be summarized as 877 11 cm/s2, even somewhat better agreement than our uncertainty analysis would lead us to expect. Note however that the other runs, with results of 908 and 968 cm/s2, lie much further away, which indicates that a real effect is at work. See below, under Error Analysis.

Error analysis

Three major systematic errors were noticed: friction, air friction, and a distance measuring inaccuracy. There may be a systematic error in the time interval as well, but an oscilloscope test (FFT analysis) run by the lab instructor at our urging was somewhat inconclusive due to the large uncertainty in the frequency measurement. Data from the manufacturer indicates an accuracy of better than one percent in the time measurement. The effect of a constant force of friction f on a falling mass m would be to lower the acceleration by an amount equal to f/m. Thus the effect on a large mass would be less than on a small mass in inverse proportion to the quantity of mass. In comparing the control runs (#1,4,5, and 6) with the run using the heavy mass (#2), we find this to be the case. The control mass had an average discrepancy of 10.5%, over eight times as large as the heavy mass. Theoretical analysis would predict ten times larger, but it seems that friction between the tape and the timer may account for most of the discrepancy. If a correction factor for a frictional force of 4000 dynes (the weight on 4 grams) is added to each result, the corrected results are as follows:
Run # 1 2 3 4 5 6 acceleration discrepancy 2 (cm/s ) 9.39% 888 1.22% 968 7.34% 908 11.0% 872 10.6% 876 11.0% 872 mass 50 g 500 g 50 g 50 g 50 g 50 g Friction Correction 2 (cm/s ) + 80 +8 + 80 + 80 + 80 + 80 Corrected result 2 (cm/s ) 968 976 988 952 956 952

To see if this was reasonable, we tried a run (with the timer running!) with a falling mass of 5 grams, and we found that friction did not stop the fall, but it did just stop the fall of a falling mass of only 4 grams. Thus the frictional correction seems to be of a reasonable amount. The corrected values are now close to being in agreement (within uncertainty limits of 15 cm/s2) with the accepted value of 980 cm/s2. Further fudging of this correction factor would bring the corrected results even closer to the accepted value, but it seemed unwarranted to us. Air friction would not be constant. It would decrease with a smaller cross-sectional area, and it would increase with a larger speed. Comparing the control runs and the third run (with a smaller area), we see that the smaller area reduced the discrepancy by about 2% or 3%, and put the corrected result well within the range of the accepted value. The fastest run (#4) was the furthest off of all the runs, but since the relatively slow run #6 was off by just as much, this may not have much meaning. Another place we might expect to see a speed effect is in the graphs of each individual run. We would expect the high-velocity points to lag below the best-fit line, especially in cases of low mass. A detailed analysis of each of the graphs shows that the last point indeed does lie below the trend line for each of the runs, indicating that there is a noticeable speed effect.

Run acceleration 2 # (cm/s ) 1 888 2 968 3 908 4 872 5 876 6 872

Friction Correction 2 (cm/s ) + 80 +8 + 80 + 80 + 80 + 80

Air friction correction 2 (cm/s ) +20 +2 +0 (?) +20 +20 +20

Corrected result 2 (cm/s ) 988 978 988 972 976 972

These corrected results have an average of 979 cm/s2, and the expected uncertainty (15 / 6 = 6 cm/s2) is very close to the observed range. The final systematic error was noticed in comparing the sum of the first fifteen intervals with the position of the fifteenth point as measured directly. The position was measured by several different meter sticks and tapes and each measurement was in agreement to within the expected 0.03 cm. uncertainty. The sum of the intervals is always short of the position, by an amount ranging from 0.1% to 0.6%. Either the method used to measure the intervals had a consistent tendency to under-measure, or the ruler used to make the measurement was inaccurate by 3 parts out of 1000. In any case, the effect of this error on the experiment is swamped by the first two errors noted (each of them ten to a hundred times as large) as well as by the uncertainty (also about ten times as large).
Answers to Questions a. For each of the two graphs, briefly explain the shape of the trendline that fits this graph. The graph of the position-time graph is a parabola, and the velocity-time graph is a straight line. b. For each of the two graphs, what to the terms (the numbers) in the equation of the trendline represent? As mentioned in the Theory section, two of the constant-acceleration equations are: v = vo + at and x = xo + vot + at2 Rearranging these so that the higher-order exponent of t comes first, and matching these with the equations fitted to the curve, it can be seen that in theory, For Graph 1 (position versus time), the first number is half the acceleration, the second one is the initial velocity, and the third one is the initial position. For Graph 2 (velocity versus time), the first number is the acceleration and the second one is the initial velocity. However, see the answer to question c. Why doesnt the line for Graph 2 go through the origin? Because we did not use the mass of overlapping dots as the origin for position, it is clear that the paper had a downward velocity at the time designated as time zero. Thus, we would expect a positive y-intercept on the velocity versus time graph. However the intercept of the best-fit line was negative in one case and zero in another. This shows that there is an artifact in the way data was collected and graphed. Does your acceleration agree with the accepted value? If not, what is the percent difference? Explain some of the sources of this difference. No. There is a discrepancy of from 1% to 11%, with the experimental number always lower than the theoretical one. Friction between the tape and the timer is the primary source of error, with air friction being a secondary one. A systematic measurement error was also found. See the Error section for a further discussion.

c.

d.

e.

Comment briefly on how this procedure may have introduced error and how it could be improved to achieve more accurate and precise results without needing different equipment. Friction slowed the acceleration. The use of heavier masses for all runs would have lessened this effect. The use of a different ruler might have eliminated the need to correct for the ruler we did use. See the Error section for a further discussion.

Extensions to the lab

Taking more runs, especially with heavy masses, and better measuring the precision and accuracy of the dot timer are the two most obvious extensions that should be done. Using a variety of rulers and meter sticks for each measurement might help eliminate the need to correct for the systematic measurement error we found, but that correction would be minor.
Who did what:

The Abstract and Conclusion were written by Greeney. The Procedure, Equipment Setup, and Diagram were written by Friedlander. The majority of the data was taken jointly, but the last three runs were done alone by Greeney. As noted above, each partner made each measurement independently. The first set of calculations were done independently by both of us (Greeney on a spreadsheet, Friedlander on a calculator). The rest of the calculations and graphs were done by Greeney. The Uncertainty and Error analyses were done by Greeney. The Questions were discussed between us, but the section was written by Friedlander. The rest of the sections, and the final collating and proofreading, were done by Greeney.

Conclusion

The acceleration of gravity was measured as a six-run average of 900 15 cm/s2. The discrepancy of 80 cm/s2 is not covered by the uncertainty, but corrections needed to account for friction between the tape and the timer and a smaller effect due to air friction (and other less major effects discussed in the Error Analysis section) do explain the discrepancy. The corrected results have an average of 979 6 cm/s2, in excellent agreement with the accepted value of 980 cm/s2.