Course: PHYS202 Section: _M2A1_________________________

Name: _Brian Lilly_________________ Instructor Name: _Abul Faiz Ishaq________

__________________________________________________________________________

Title: Angle for Maximum Range

__________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Before I can determine the angle for maximum range, I have to derive the proper
equations to use. By starting with Newton's second law, and using both derivatives and
trigonometry, I finally arrive at the range equation. Then, it is on to trial and error. By testing
multiple angles and assessing the data, the proper angle to use to achieve the maximum range is
identified. Several different approaches are used to help prove the angle is correct. Lastly, some
of the differences between theoretical determination and practical application are discussed.
Introduction: In this experiment we will be using Newtonian physics to determine the angle
required to achieve the maximum range of a particle in motion. In the study of Newtonian
physics, one of the simplest experiments to run is to study the trajectory of a projectile in motion,
whether that is throwing a ball or firing a cannon. Studying , extrapolating and predicting the
time to impact, height, and range, are all examples of data that can be calculated or obtained with
this type of experiment. Of course, we are going to have establish rules for our calculations. First
off, we cannot account for wind. At least not simply and easily. So, our experiment is going to
have to assume there is no wind. We will also have to confine this projectile to a single vertical
plane during the course of it's flight. This way we need only concern ourselves with the x- and y-
axis.

So, Lets get a picture to use for reference during our discussion:

Now, let's apply Newton's second law to define the forces in both the x and y directions:

F x =ma x =0
F y =ma y =mg
Well, since we're not concerned with force, right now. If we divide by mass, we'll be left with
only acceleration. And if we then take the derivative of the acceleration, we'll be able to
determine the velocity of our projectile. First, lets assess the x-axis:

a x =0
dv
a x = x =0
dt
dv x= (0) dt
The derivative of 0 is a constant and from trigonometry, we can determine that:
v x (t )=v O cos()
Taking the derivative of the velocity will yield the distance traveled. Thus,
dx
v x (t)= =v O cos()
dt
 dx= ( vO cos()) dt
x (t )=v O cos ()t+ C
x (0)=0 , C=0
x (t)=v O cos() t
Now, to evaluate the y-axis. Fist we'll determine the velocity equation:
dv y
a y= =g
dt
dv y = (g ) dt
v y (t)=g t+ C
This constant can also be determined using trigonometry,
v y (t)=g t+ v O sin()
Next we'll determine the distance equation, which is the derivative of velocity.
dy
v y (t)= =g t+ v O sin()
dt
dy= (g t + v O sin ())dt
y (t )=.5 g t 2+ v O sin ()t + C
y (0)=0 , C=0
y (t )=.5 g t 2+ v O sin ()t
Thus, we have our equations, which allow us to calculate any point along the arc of travel for our
projectile.

For the x-axis

x (t)=v O cos() t
v x (t )=v O cos( )
For the y-axis:
2
y (t )=.5 g t + v O sin ()t
v y (t)=g t+ v O sin()
If we were then to determine the time to impact, we would need to determine the time at which
y(t) came back to the original value, or 0. To do this, we'll have to apply the quadratic formula:
2
y (t )=.5 g t + v O sin ()t =0
v O sin() (v O sin ())2
t=
g
Since one of the operations results in t = 0, which is the origin point, we can determine the other
is the termination point.
2v O sin()
t=
g
We can now determine the maximum x-axis distance, or range, of our projectile by determining
the value of x(t), where t is equal to the termination point.
2
2v sin () cos()
x (t)= O
g
or, using trigonometry identities,
 2
v sin(2)
x (t )= O =Range
g
This is the property that we will be investigating during the experiment.
__________________________________________________________________________
Methods: During this experiment, I utilized an online simulator. Within the simulator, I set the
angle at 40O and the initial velocity at 18m/s. The instructions stated to set the target to the same
horizontal elevation as the cannon; however, in the program given to us, I found that the location
of the target was irrelevant. The projectile always went to ground, not the level of the target. So,
the step should rather have read, Ensure that the cannon is firmly seated on the ground.
However, even with that, it was still elevated about 1.2m above the ground level. Then, I
launched a projectile once every degree up to 50O, obtaining 11 data points. I assessed this data
and attempted to determine the angle required to produce the maximum range. My data was
highly ambiguous, compounded by the fact that the program only displayed range to the tenths
place. But, based on this data, I formulated a hypothesis as to the actual angle of maximum
range. To test my hypothesis, I took two routes, not knowing which would yield better results. In
one approach, I used my equation to determine the expected range over the various angles
previously simulated, to try to obtain more significant figures. In the other, I adjusted the initial
velocity to 200m/s, producing a 'power punch' effect, in order to produce a much larger range,
allowing for the collection of more accurate data. I then proceeded to launch at multiple angles,
to determine which was the the requisite angle.
__________________________________________________________________________

Results: My hypotheses was that the maximum projectile range will result from a launch angle
of 45 degrees. This was based on the fact that the range equation had a factor of sin(2). Since,
45 doubled is 90, an angle of 90O will yield the maximum value with the sine function.

My first set of data was as follows:

Initial Data

Angle 40O 41O 42O 43O 44O 45O 46O 47O 48O 49O 50O

Rang 33.9 34.1 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.1 33.9 33.8 33.5
e

(m)

There was a range, between 42O and 46O which all had the same range. The mid-point in that
group is 44O. As there was a 1.2m elevation, that I could not eliminate in the simulator; I believe
this caused my initial data to be skewed towards the smaller, shallower arcs, seeing as they
would have traveled further during the extra space allowed.
In my calculated approach, I used my previously derived equation to calculate the expected
range over the various angles and carried them out to three decimal points.
2
v O sin( 2)
Range=
g
2
18 sin ( 2x45)
Range=
9.8

Range=32.559

Performing these same calculation with the rest of the angles produced the following results:

Calculated Data

Angle 40O 41O 42O 43O 44O 45O 46O 47O 48O 49O 50O

Rang 32.55 32.73 32.88 32.98 33.04 33.06 33.04 32.98 32.88 32.73 32.55
e (m) 9 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 9

The calculated approach data indicates a maximum range occurring at 45O. With values getting
shorter equally as they get further away from the 45O angle.

My power punch approach with the simulator yielded these results:

200m/s Data

Angle 44O 45O 46O 44.5O 44.8O 44.9O 45.1O 45.2O

Range 4080.4 4082.8 4080.3 4082.2 4082.7 4082.8 4082.8 4082.7

(m)

The power punch approach also showed a maximum range occurring at 45O, although the
deviation from maximum as you deviated from 45O was less symmetrical.

The calculated data reflects what I would have expected.

also allowed for better differentiation between the angles.

__________________________________________________________________________

Discussion: Although the initial set of data did not support my hypothesis, the subsequent two
approaches did lend support. As stated, with the 1.2m elevation, the projectile would have had a
longer path of travel along the y-axis, and that would have had a disproportionate effect on the
smaller angles. With their shallower parabolic arc, they would traveled further along the x-axis
for a given amount of travel along the y-axis. This can be seen by the apparent shift down in the
the angle yielding the maximum projectile range.

There are some aspects of this experiment which lack a bit of realism. For example, mass is not a
factor in any of the equations beyond the first. While it is true that a tennis ball and an
automobile, imparted with the same initial velocity, propelled at the same angle, would indeed
have the same range. However, this does not take multiple things into account. First, the amount
of energy (force) required to get those object to the initial velocity to drastically different.
Second, the automobile would experience much more drag (wind resistance) than the tennis ball.
Even on a perfectly calm day, the car and the tennis ball would experience this counter force,
impeding its forward momentum, the car simply more so. When we laid out the ground rules for
our discussion back at the beginning, we acknowledged some of these short comings. But
depending on your application, you may have to anticipate these as well. If you have a tail wind,
you may get more range by setting a steeper angle, due to the longer time in the air for the wind
to act against, assisting it on its way. Conversely, if you have a head wind, you may get greater
range by setting a slightly smaller angle, due to spending less time traveling, resulting in less
counter force from the wind. However, by knowing the theoretical maximum and how to achieve
it, you can then make some adjustments due to these factors and perhaps come closer the real
maximum.
__________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion: While there are some real world limitations, the principles of Newtonian physics
help us to better understand how the world around us works. By applying Newton's laws under
ideal conditions, we have a good starting point to predicting outcomes in the real world. Further,
by investigating the causes for the deviation from the theoretical, our predictive abilities can
become more and more honed. So, while an angle of 45O may give you the maximum range in
your Pumpkin Chucking contest, don't get too lost in the math and forget to account for the real
world factors.
__________________________________________________________________________

References:

Brown, R.G. (2013) Introductory Physics I: Elementary Mechanics. Retrieved from:

https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1/intro_physics_1.pdf