Kothamasu Pranavasai Bhavesh (15)

Aaryan Mondal (01)

FN 402

Investigation of Temperature’s effect on the Coefficient of Restitution of a Tennis Ball

1|Page
 1. Introduction
a. Personal Engagement

Being an avid Squash fan, I have watched numerous Squash tournaments and one common pre-
match activity that I have noticed was that all players would bounce their squash balls repeatedly onto
the walls of the court. While this may serve as a warm-up, it also heats up the balls so that it is
‘bouncier’ – as mentioned by one of my Squash player friends. This made me wonder if such an
activity would apply for other larger sports balls. Being a Tennis player, I am eager to find out if
heating the tennis ball would make it “bouncier”, in other words – increase its coefficient of
restitution. If this concept were to apply for Tennis balls, it can be extremely useful for faster tennis
serves because more kinetic energy would be retained in the ball after the collision with the ground.
Thus, my research question is - How does temperature affect the coefficient of restitution of a tennis
ball?

b. Literature Review

Newton’s Law of Restitution states that when 2 objects collide, the speed 𝑣1 and 𝑣2 at which they
move after the collision depends on the material the object is made out of. Since 𝐾𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 =
1
2
𝑚𝑣 2 , Newton’s Law of Restitution can be seen as a parameter 𝑒 which indicates how much kinetic

energy remains in the object after the collision (Clapham, 1990).

Suppose a rubber hollow ball is falling perpendicularly onto the floor and possess velocities 𝑣𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙
and 𝑣𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 respectively before the collision. After the collision, they possess velocities 𝑢𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and
𝑢𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 respectively. Assuming that both 𝑚𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 remains constant and the velocity of the floor remains
1 2
𝑚|𝑢𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 |
at 0 𝑚𝑠 −1 (i.e., 𝑣𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 = 𝑢𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑟 = 0 𝑚𝑠 −1) throughout the collision, 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 = √21 2 |
. In real world
𝑚|𝑣𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙
2

situations, energy dissipates from the ball during the collision (Levinson et al., 2021). Therefore,
1 2 1 2
2
𝑚|𝑢𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 | < 2 𝑚|𝑣𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 |. Thus, 0 < 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 < 1. Every collision can be viewed as a cycle of contraction

and restitution. Given that rubber does not follow Hooke’s law perfectly, the loss of energy in the
rubber ball can be modelled after the Elastic Hysteresis Graph.

From the Hysteresis loop, it is clear that the area

between the 2 loops represent the energy lost during
the collision. It can be concludable that to achieve a
greater 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 , energy lost during the collision should
be reduced.
Figure 1: Elastic Hysteresis Model

2|Page
 (Virginia, 2013) and (Yoshioka, 2007) discuss that temperature increases the coefficient of
restitution of a rubber ball by reducing energy loss to environment during the collision and increasing
its bulk modulus.

When the rubber ball hits the ground, the molecules of the long polymer chains of rubber
untangle and stretch, converting kinetic energy (K.E.) to elastic potential energy (E.P.E) and other
forms of energy since no ball is perfectly elastic (Virginia, 2013). After a short duration, atomic
interactions bring about restitution of the rubber ball, converting all E.P.E to K.E. in theory. At high
temperatures, (Virginia, 2013) proposes that atomic bonds of rubber are freer, thus allowing for
greater and faster stretch and restitution of rubber polymer chains. This means that the ball is more
elastic, resulting in less heat energy being released to surroundings via the hysteresis of the rubber
ball. With the ball retaining more K.E after collision, 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 therefore increases.

(Yoshioka, 2007) discusses that the ‘extended’ form of rubber can be modelled after the
‘compressed’ form of gas because of their similar underlying thermodynamic properties. Therefore,
𝛥𝑉
the bulk modulus of rubber 𝐾, which is usually defined by the equation ∆𝑃 = −𝐾 𝑉
can be modelled

after the Ideal Gas Law 𝑃𝑉 = 𝑛𝑅𝑇.

1 𝛥𝑉 𝑃 𝛥𝑉
∆𝑃 = 𝑛𝑅𝑇 ( ) = −𝑛𝑅𝑇 ( 2 ) = − ( 2 )
∆𝑉 𝑉 𝑉 𝑉

𝛥𝑉 𝛥𝑉
∴ ∆𝑃 = −𝑃 = −𝐾
𝑉 𝑉

Thus, 𝐾 = 𝑃, and at a fixed volume 𝑉, 𝐾 ∝ 𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒. At higher 𝐾, the rubber ball is

stiffer (Albeck, 2017) thus will deform lesser during the collision and retain more energy after the
collision (Williams, 2004), resulting in 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 to increase.

c. Purpose of Experiment

The purpose of this investigation is to find out whether temperature has an impact on the
coefficient of restitution of the tennis ball. In other words, the investigation concludes whether
temperature impacts the amount of energy lost during an elastic collision. Additionally, the
investigation will determine whether the size of the sports ball influences temperature’s effect on
coefficient of restitution, because a Tennis ball is larger in size compared to a Squash ball.

d. Hypothesis

The higher the temperature of the tennis ball, the greater its coefficient of restitution. This is because
at higher temperatures, less energy is lost to environment via rubber hysteresis and bulk modulus of
rubber also increases.

3|Page
 2. Methodology
a. Procedure and Apparatus

Procedure Figure
1. Pour 350ml of pre-heated water (80°C) into the
500ml beaker.
2. Place the beaker on the hot plate (set to 100°C) – to
ensure water does not lose heat to surroundings and
remains above 80°C
3. Place a Tennis ball (at room temperature) and a
measuring cylinder inside a Ziploc bag, which is
then placed in the 500ml beaker. – to prevent ball
from absorbing water from water bath
Figure 2: Heating Zone (Set-up to heat Tennis ball to 30°C,
4. Temperature probe (attached to data logger + laptop)
40°C, 50°C, 60°C, 70°C & 80°C)
is placed inside the Ziploc bag. – to find out
temperature of the ball
5. When the Logger-pro software indicates that the
Tennis ball is at its desired temperature, remove the
ball and bring it to the dropping zone using Beaker
Tongs.
6. Release the Tennis ball at 98.0cm mark, and record
the bounce of the Tennis ball using the iPhone
camera as seen in Figure 3. Then, tabulate the
maximum height the ball bounces.
7. Repeat Steps (1) to (6) 3 times and tabulate the
results. – to calculate average and increase
Figure 3: Dropping Zone where height of bounce is recorded
reliability of results

Table 1: Procedure to obtain the maximum height tennis ball bounces at 30°C, 40°C, 50°C, 60°C,
70°C & 80°C

4|Page
 Procedure Figure
1. Pour 350ml of water with ice into the 500ml beaker.
– 20°C is less than room temperature (<25°C)
2. Place a Tennis ball (at room temperature) and a
measuring cylinder inside a Ziploc bag, which is then
placed in the 500ml beaker. – to prevent ball from
absorbing water from water bath
3. Temperature probe (attached to data logger + laptop)
is placed inside the Ziploc bag. – to find out
temperature of the ball
Figure 4: Cooling Zone (Set-up to cool Tennis ball to 20°C)

4. When the Logger-pro software indicates that the

Tennis ball is at its desired temperature, remove the
ball and bring it to the dropping zone using Beaker
Tongs.
5. Release the Tennis ball at 98.0cm mark, and record
the bounce of the Tennis ball using the iPhone
camera as seen in Figure 3. Then, tabulate the
maximum height the ball bounces.
6. Repeat Steps (1) to (6) 3 times and tabulate the
results. – to calculate average and increase
Figure 3: Side-View of Dropping Zone where height of
reliability of results
bounce is recorded

Table 2: Procedure to obtain the maximum height tennis ball bounces at 20°C

Apparatus for Heating/Cooling Tennis Balls Apparatus for Dropping Zone

• Tennis Ball x 3 • Retort Stand
• 100ml Beaker • Boss-head and Clamp
• 500ml Beaker • iPhone with Camera App
• Ziploc bag x 15 • Stool
• Cold water with Ice (350ml) • Set Square
• Pre-heated Hot water (350ml) • Metre Ruler
• Hot Plate • Beaker Tongs
• Temperature probe + Data Logger
• Laptop with Logger-Pro Software
Table 3: Table of Apparatus

5|Page
 b. Variables in the Experiment

Types of Variable Methodology Rationale

Variables Measured
Independent Temperature of The set-ups in Figure 2 and
Tennis Ball Figure 4 allowed for Tennis
balls of temperatures 20°C,
30°C, 40°C, 50°C, 60°C, 70°C
& 80°C to be obtained.
Dependent Maximum The set-up in Figure 3 allowed
height the for a slow-motion video of the
Tennis Ball Tennis Ball’s bounce to be
bounces recorded. By manually viewing
the video, the maximum height
the tennis ball bounced can be
observed.
Based on my hypothesis, as the temperature of the
Tennis ball increases, its coefficient of restitution
increases, resulting in it bouncing higher.
Since a lab speedometer was unavailable, measuring
the instantaneous speed of tennis ball before and
after collision was impossible. Another method to
calculate coefficient of restitution would be the
maximum height the ball bounced, possible due to
the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Figure 5: Derivation of expression where e is

expressed in terms of h

Calculating 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 using height is better than using

velocity because height can be both quantified by
humans and the Logger-pro software, whereas
velocity can only be quantified by the Logger-pro
software. Thus, calculating 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 using height is
more reliable.

Table 4: Table of Independent and Dependent Variables

6|Page
Types of Variable Method of Control Rationale
Variables Controlled
Controlled Initial velocity Beaker Tongs are A fair experiment would only occur if all tennis balls used in
of Tennis Ball used to release the experiments are all released at the same velocity (such as 0 m/s).
Tennis Ball. This is because if the tennis ball was released at a velocity > 0m/s, it
would have more kinetic energy before the collision with the floor,
thus consequently possessing more kinetic energy after the collision
with the floor. This would result in a greater maximum bounce
height to be obtained. Therefore, this method of control ensures that
all tennis balls are released at 0m/s, leading to a fair experiment.
Dryness of By placing the tennis A fair experiment would only occur if all tennis balls used in
Tennis Ball ball inside a Ziploc experiments are either all dry or all wet. This is because in
bag while it heats or comparison to a dry ball, a wet ball bounces less high because when
cools to its desired the ball strikes the ground, the water that was absorbed by the ‘fur’
temperature, the on the Tennis Ball’s surface will move around and absorb kinetic
tennis ball would not energy. With more energy lost during the collision with the ground,
absorb any water 𝑒𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 would be lesser (Illinois, 2007). Therefore, this method of
from the water bath. control ensures that only dry balls are used within the investigation,
Hence, the tennis ball hence leading to a fair experiment.
remains dry.
Surface where Dropping zone is A fair experiment would only occur if all tennis balls used in
the Tennis located at the same experiments bounce off the same surface. This is because if a tennis
Ball bounces place throughout the ball bounces off a softer surface, more energy is absorbed by the
different surface (Kuninaka & Hayakawa, 2004). Thus, the tennis ball would
experimentation retain less kinetic energy, causing 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 to be lesser. Therefore, this
days. method of control ensures that the ball bounces off the same
surface, thus the same amount of energy is absorbed by the surface
at every collision, hence leading to a fair experiment.
Table 5: Table of Controlled Variables

c. Risk Assessment

In the experiment, in order to ensure safety of experimenters, thermal gloves must be worn to
prevent thermal burns to skin while transferring the heated tennis balls from heating zone to dropping
zone. There are no ethical issues in the experiment because no harm is done to existing wildlife or
humans. However, with considerable amount of water (i.e., 8𝑙) being used for the water bath to bring
tennis balls to desired temperatures, some environmental concerns can be raised.

7|Page
 3. Results
a. Raw Data

Temperature of Ball / °C
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Maximum Trial 1 58.0 63.0 67.0 70.0 69.0 73.0 75.0
Height Ball Trial 2 56.0 58.0 60.0 58.0 64.0 74.0 78.0
bounced / cm Trial 3 56.0 58.0 64.0 63.0 66.0 71.0 77.0
Initial Ball Trial 1 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0
Drop Height Trial 2 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0
/cm Trial 3 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0 98.0
Table 6: Table of Raw Data obtained from Experiment

b. Sample Calculations

Sample calculation of Average Height:

At 30°C,

63.0 + 58.0 + 58.0

𝐴𝑣𝑔. 𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 = = 59.7𝑐𝑚
3

Sample calculation of Average Coefficient of Restitution (COR) of Tennis Ball:

At 30°C,

59.7
𝐴𝑣𝑔. 𝐶𝑂𝑅 = √ = 0.781
98.0

c. Processed Data

Temperature of Ball / °C
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Average Height 56.7 59.7 63.7 63.7 66.3 72.7 76.7
Ball bounced / cm
Average COR of 0.761 0.781 0.806 0.806 0.823 0.861 0.885
Ball
Table 7: Table of Processed Data obtained from Experiment

8|Page
4. Analysis

Figure 6: Line Graph of Coefficient of Restitution against Temperature (℃)

Figure 7: Cubic Graph of Coefficient of Restitution against Temperature (℃)

9|Page
 As shown in Table 7, the coefficient of restitution of the tennis ball (𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) increases from
0.761 to 0.885 as its temperature (𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 ) increases from 20℃ to 80℃. Hence, a positive correlation is
observed between the coefficient of restitution of the tennis ball and temperature.

Figure 6 shows a strong positive linear correlation (R2 value = 0.976) between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 ,
where 𝑒 = 0.00189𝑇 + 0.723. This is very close to perfect correlation (where R2 value = 1). When
𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 increases, 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 increases linearly, however 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 is not directly proportional to 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 because the
‘e-intercept’ is not (0,0). The slight lack of correlation is a possible result of the uncertainties in the
values of 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 . Uncertainty in the temperature is due to the assumptions that 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟
and that 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 remains constant while being transferred from heating/cooling zone to the dropping
zone, where it will be dropped. Uncertainty in 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 occurs because of the presence of human error
when human judgement was made whilst measuring the maximum ball bounce height. Nevertheless,
the low Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) value of 0.01011 shows that the linear model is very
accurate because it ‘fits’ with the data set very well.

However, with the cubic model possessing a lower RMSE value of 0.01004 (Figure 7), it is a
much better model for demonstrating the positive correlational relationship between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 ,
whereby 𝑒 = 0.000000833𝑇 3 − 0.000117𝑇 2 + 0.00673𝑇 + 0.665. Furthermore, the cubic model
also depicts the special physical design of the Tennis Ball. Figure 7 shows that the slope of the cubic
model is gentler at temperature ranges 30℃ to 50℃. Perhaps this is because the tennis balls have
been designed such that temperature’s effect on 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 is minimum at typical temperatures of 25℃ to
35℃ in which the game of Tennis is played at (Haggerty, 2021). This is to ensure that 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 remains
relatively constant and thus, the Tennis match remains fair although playing temperatures varies
between 25℃ to 35℃. Also, the tennis ball was not designed for minimum energy loss during elastic
collision at cold temperatures (<10℃), as seen by the relatively steeper gradient of the cubic curve
from 0 to 10 degrees. This is because the game of Tennis is not usually played in cold conditions
(Haggerty, 2021). Thus, the cubic model is better than the linear model because it not only
demonstrates the correlation between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 , but it also illustrates special features of the
Tennis balls.

However, both the linear and cubic models have a limitation whereby they are not able to
demonstrate the theoretical maximum and minimum coefficient of restitution of the Tennis ball;
maximum being 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 1 where no kinetic energy is lost from the ball during collision, and
minimum being 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 0, where all kinetic energy is lost from the ball during collision. From
Figures 6 and 7, the coefficient of restitution of the ball can be seen to be eventually increasing
beyond 1, which theoretically is not possible. Therefore, the linear and cubic trends produced in
Figures 6 and 7 are only valid for the range 0 ≤ 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 ≤ 1.

10 | P a g e
 5. Conclusion

This experiment was conducted to investigate the relationship between 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 . The
hypothesis is that “The higher the temperature of the tennis ball, the greater its coefficient of
restitution”. To prove this, the maximum height the balls bounce at different temperatures were
recorded. Results obtained were processed, after which both a linear and cubic model are plotted. In
both the models, a positive trend was observed whereby when 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 increases from 20℃ to 80℃, 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙
increases from 0.761 to 0.885. Furthermore, Figures 6 and 7 show that 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 ranged from 0.770 to
0.793 in playing temperatures of 25℃ and 35℃, which is within the regulated accepted range by
International Tennis Federation (Roux & Dickerson, 2007). Therefore, it can be concluded that data
collected proved the hypothesis to a high accuracy. This also means that size of the ball does not
influence 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 ’s effect on 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 . However, the experiment conducted was not fully perfect because of
procedural flaws and sources of errors, which will be explained in detail in 6. Evaluation.

6. Evaluation
a. Strengths of Experiment

As aforementioned in Table 5, by ensuring that variables such as initial velocity of tennis ball,
dryness of tennis ball and the surface tennis ball bounces on constant, the experiment conducted
would be fair. Also, by repeating the experiment thrice and using the average 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 for deriving the
relationship between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 , the relationship between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 is more accurate and
reliable because effects caused by errors in the experiment are reduced.

b. Limitations of Experiment

Procedural Flaws

Procedural Flaw 1

By assuming 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 = temperature of air surrounding the ball (Figure 2 & 4) and that 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 did
not change as the ball was transferred from heating/cooling zone to the dropping zone, it is highly
possible that the tennis ball was not at its desired temperature before being dropped. Therefore, the
scale of the graphs plotted (Figure 6 & 7) and correlation between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 is inaccurate,
thereby resulting in the slight lack in the correlation and RMSE values (Figure 6 & 7). However,
given that such circumstances were similar for all balls of different temperatures, 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 at different
temperatures are still relative to one another, thus results obtained are consistent.

Procedural Flaw 2

Experiment was not conducted in ambient conditions. Presence of air resistance in dropping
zone caused the tennis ball to not only lose energy during the collision, but also during its fall and
bounce, because air resistance opposes motion of the ball. Thus, the tennis ball leaves the floor after

11 | P a g e
the collision with even lesser kinetic energy due to air resistance, causing it to bounce to a lower
height and calculated 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 would be lower than its actual value. It is not possible to assume whether
results obtained are consistent because amongst the factors affecting air resistance (Orzel, 2015), only
the surface area of the ball remained constant throughout all experiments, whereas, velocity of the ball
and the density of air in the dropping zone cannot be assumed to be constant throughout the
experiments because a barometer (to measure air pressure) and a lab speedometer (to measure
velocity of ball) were not used to measure these physical conditions. Thus, with unknown
environmental conditions, this investigation cannot be recreated by other researchers and
experimenters.

Procedural Flaw 3

Only a limited range of temperature’s effects (i.e., 20℃ to 80℃) on 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 was tested.
Therefore, the linear and cubic models were unable to demonstrate the phenomenon 0 ≤ 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 ≤ 1.

Procedural Flaw 4

A video recording was taken to measure the maximum height a ball bounces at different
temperatures (Figure 3). Since the video was blurry, exact maximum bounce heights were difficult to
distinguish. With the requirement of human judgement instead of software analysis, the observer-
expectancy effect took place. This means that for balls with greater temperatures, I would
unknowingly read the metre ruler wrongly so that the ‘inaccurate’ results obtained would suit my
hypothesis (Rosenthal, 2014). Thus, the relationship between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 is unreliable.

Sources of Error

Source of Error 1

Since the ball bounces obliquely, not

perpendicularly to the floor, maximum height it
bounces would be lesser (Figure 8), hence 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙
would be lesser than its true value, causing
inaccuracies in the scale of the graph and
correlation between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 .
Since each ball’s bounce is random
(Oppenheimer, 2003), results obtained for 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 Figure 8: Difference in heights of an oblique
and perpendicular ball bounce
are inconsistent.
This random error can only be avoided with
another experimental design where 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 can be
calculated without the ball’s bounce.

12 | P a g e
 c. Possible Improvements

Improvement for Procedural Flaw 1

Reducing distance between heating/cooling zone and transporting the tennis ball in an
insulator allows the ball to lose less heat to surroundings. Then, 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 would be closer to its desired
temperature when it is released, thereby leading to more accurate relationship between 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 .

Improvement for Procedural Flaw 2

To reduce the energy the ball loses to air resistance, the location of dropping zone should be
in an enclosed area where air resistance is minimum. It is not possible for the dropping zone to be
held in a vacuum because the difference in air pressures would cause the tennis ball to explode. Also,
the experiment should be conducted in a location where environmental conditions such as temperature
and air pressure is controllable so that other researchers can also recreate this investigation.

Improvement for Procedural Flaw 3

An experiment involving an increase in the range of temperature’s effect on 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 must be

conducted. However, more apparatus such as an ethanol bath (to bring 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 < 0℃) and silicone oil
bath (to bring 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 > 100℃) would be required.

Improvement for Procedural Flaw 4

The ball’s bounce must be recorded using a high-definition video camera so that a video-
analysing software can be used to determine the ball’s maximum bounce height, thus leading to a
more accurate and reliable relationship between 𝑒𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 and 𝑇𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 , as experimenter bias is avoided.

d. Possible Extensions

Effect of temperature on the coefficient of restitution (COR) of different types of tennis balls
can be investigated. (Haggerty, 2001) states that there are 3 different types of tennis balls, each
constructed using a rubber of differing hardness – ball type 1 (hardest rubber), ball type 2 (medium
hardness) and ball type 3 (relatively softest rubber). Thus, it would be interesting to investigate the
influence of the hardness of rubber on temperature’s impact on COR of the tennis ball.

13 | P a g e
 7. Bibliography

Albeck, M. (2017). What is bulk modulus? Matmatch. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://matmatch.com/learn/property/bulk-modulus

Clapham, C. (1990). Coefficient of restitution. Oxford Reference. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095621817

Haggerty, D. (2001, September 17). ITF introduces three types of balls to counter power game. The

Independent. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/itf-introduces-three-types-of-balls-to-counter-

power-game-9206610.html

Haggerty, D. (2021). TOKYO 2020: WHAT IS THE EXTREME WEATHER POLICY? Itftennis.com.

Retrieved September 2, 2022, from https://www.itftennis.com/en/news-and-

media/articles/tokyo-2020-what-is-the-extreme-weather-policy/

Illinois, U. (2007). Q & A: Factors affected a bouncing tennis ball. Q & A: Factors affected a

bouncing tennis ball | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=106&t=factors-affected-a-bouncing-tennis-

ball

Kuninaka, H., & Hayakawa, H. (2004, October 5). Anomalous behavior of the coefficient of normal

restitution in oblique impact. Physical Review Letters. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.154301

Levinson, D., Liu, H., Garrison, W., Hickman, M., Corbett, M., Nee, B., Dixon, K., & Danczyk, A.

(2021, July 28). 10.2: Surface collisions and the coefficient of restitution. Engineering

LibreTexts. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://eng.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Mechanical_Engineering/Mechanics_Map_(Moore_et_

al.)/10%3A_Impulse_and_Momentum_in_Particles/10.02%3A_Surface_Collisions_and_the_

Coefficient_of_Restitution

Oppenheimer, F. (2003). Bouncing balls. Science of Baseball. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/activities/bouncing-balls.html

14 | P a g e
Orzel, C. (2015, September 29). The annoying physics of air resistance. Forbes. Retrieved September

2, 2022, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/09/29/the-annoying-physics-of-

air-resistance/?sh=52ceddd0718a

Rosenthal, R. (2014, September 29). Expectancy Effect by Experimenters. Retrieved September 2,

2022, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118445112.stat06726

Roux, A., & Dickerson , J. (2007). Coefficient of restitution of a tennis ball - isjos.org. ISB Journal of

Physics, Vol. 1, Iss. 1. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://www.isjos.org/JoP/vol1/Papers/JoPv1i1-2Tennis.pdf

Virginia, U. (2013, March 20). Parliament of Queensland. Rubber elasticity. Retrieved September 2,

2022, from https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/committees/EIC/2013/QldAssessment/tp-

20Mar2013-Assignment.pdf

Williams, J. (2004). Follow the bouncing ball. Follow the Bouncing Ball - Tennis Industry. Retrieved

September 2, 2022, from

http://www.tennisindustrymag.com/articles/2004/04/follow_the_bouncing_ball.html

Yoshioka, D. (2007). Statistical physics. SpringerLink. Retrieved September 2, 2022, from

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-28606-6

15 | P a g e