Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Measuring The Coefficient of Restitution of A Table Tennis Ball
Measuring The Coefficient of Restitution of A Table Tennis Ball
Raw Data
H1
(cm)
21.0
27.6
33.0
41.4
46.8
58.0
70.0
86.0
100.
0
H2
H2
H2
H2
H2
H2
Repeat 1 Repeat 2 Repeat 3 Repeat 4 Repeat 5 Average
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
(cm)
16.0
15.5
17.0
15.5
15.0
15.8
20.5
21.5
22.5
21.0
22.0
21.5
24.5
26.5
27.0
24.0
26.0
25.6
30.5
30.0
31.5
32.0
30.5
30.9
35.0
34.5
32.5
34.0
34.5
34.1
41.0
42.0
41.5
38.0
41.0
40.7
49.0
47.0
48.0
46.0
49.5
47.9
57.0
55.0
58.5
59.0
56.0
57.1
62.0
64.0
65.5
63.0
67.0
64.3
Processed Data
H1 (cm)
21
28
33
41
47
58
70
86
100
H1
Uncertainty
(cm)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
H2 (cm)
H2
Uncertainty
(cm)
15
22
26
32
37
41
48
57
64
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Page 1 of 8
Ed Moss
Page 2 of 8
Ed Moss
70.0
f(x) = 0.69x - 0.69
f(x) = 0.6x + 5.05
60.0
f(x) = 0.53x + 8
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Ed Moss
A note on uncertainties
The uncertainties in H1 (the initial drop height) are simply an estimate
based on the fact that we judged the height of the ball by eye against a
ruler. It would therefore be unreasonable to say we were accurate to the
nearest millimeter but it is reasonable to say that the drop height we
measured was within a centimeter of the actual height. The uncertainty in
H2 (the height after the first bounce) is estimated by looking at the
difference between the average and the individual readings (see raw
data). The greatest difference between any individual reading and the
average is 2.7cm (see the highlighted sections of the raw data). This
shows us that a reasonable uncertainty for H2 is 3cm.
Calculation
Theory predicts that:
e=
V2
V1
Where:
We have not measured the velocity of the ping pong ball, but from our
experiment me did measure: H1 = the height the ball was dropped from
H2 = the height of the ball at the top of the 1st bounce
If we assume that all the gravitational potential energy of the ball is
converted to kinetic energy when it is dropped then we can form the
equation:
1
2
mg h1= m v 1
2
v 12=2 g h1
Similarly if we assume that, once the ball hits the tabletop, all of the
kinetic energy of the ball is converted back into gravitational potential
energy, then we can form another equation:
1
mg h2= m v 22
2
2
v 2 =2 g h2
Therefore we can say that:
Page 4 of 8
Ed Moss
v 1 2 g h1
=
2
v 2 2 g h2
v 12 h1
=
v 22 h2
h2 v 22
=
h1 v 12
h2 2
=e
h1
2
h2=e h1
This final result is important as it allows us to use our graph to calculate a
value for e. Since this equation is of the form:
y=mx +c
We can see that the gradient of our graph corresponds to e2.
The line of best fit gives a value of e2 to be 0.6044.
The maximum and minimum lines of best fit show the uncertainty in the
value of e2:
2
0.53 e 0.6869
2
e =0.6044 0.0825
( 0.68690.6044=0.0825 )
Page 5 of 8
Ed Moss
Evaluation
It is first important to comment on the quality of the data, although our
final result was wrong the data itself seems not to have any anomalous
points. At each height there was a small data spread (always less than
3cm) but overall the data seems coherent. The uncertainty comes from
the fact that we are only judging the height of the ball by eye, and so,
depending on where you look at the ball from, it may seem to be at
different heights. It is also very difficult to measure H2 as the ball is
moving relatively quickly and so it is difficult to determine where precisely
the top of the bounce is. There is undoubtedly a random error in both H1
and H2 but this alone does not seem to be able to explain why our result
is so far off, indeed in our calculations we factored in uncertainties in H1
and H2 and the result was still wrong. The discrepancy between our result
and the actual result is probably due to a systematic error. Below are
three potential errors in the experiment which may have caused the
discrepancy.
The table tennis ball we were using may have been old or not official. The
value of 0.89-0.92 describes the resistivity of competition standard ping
pong balls. The ball we were using may not have been made to
completion standard, i.e. it may not be as bouncy as a completion ball. If
the ball was indeed less bouncy than a completion ball then (as we
recorded) its coefficient of resistivity would be less than 0.89.
1Table Tennis. Wikipedia Online. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_tennis
(accessed 14/02/12)
Page 6 of 8
Ed Moss
The surface we were dropping the ball onto may have damped the bounce
of the ball. The official measurement is made using a steel plate, but we
performed our experiment on a laminate work surface. If the worktop is a
better damper than the steel the ball would not bounce as high and thus
e would be less than the official value.
The third (and in my opinion most likely) reason why our value of e was
so far off was that some of the assumptions made in our calculation were
incorrect. We assumed that when the ball was dropped all its potential
energy was converted to kinetic energy. However, when the ball is
dropped from some of the higher heights, it is travelling at a reasonably
high speed when it falls. This means that there is a significant air
resistance acting upon the ball, i.e. some of the potential energy is lost to
heat as the ball falls. This means that the ball is not travelling as fast as it
hits the surface and so does not bounce as high. I.e. H2 is lower than it
should be. For example, at a height of 100cm, we recorded H2 to be 64
whereas if air resistance was not a factor it would probably be closer to 80
or 90. This means that our line of best fit is not as steep as it should be, so
the gradient is smaller, so the calculated value of e is smaller.
The impact of air resistance is probably the main reason why the data
does not give us a correct value of e. It is a systematic error as all the
balls will bounce less high as they would have done if there was no air
resistance. However this systematic error does not shift the whole line of
best fit as it affects the balls dropped from higher points than those
dropped from lower points2. It simply distorts the data of the higher balls
and so means the gradient is less than it should be. Below is a graph of
the experiment if we only use the first 3 lowest readings. At these heights
the effect of air resistance is negligible. Using this line of best fit the
calculated value of e is 0.905, which agrees with the literature value of
0.89-0.92.
2 This is due to the fact that the amount of air resistance depends on the
velocity squared.
Page 7 of 8
Ed Moss
20.0
H2 - Height After First Bounce (cm)
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0
H1 - Height Dropped (cm)
Page 8 of 8