Acceleration Due to Gravity

Introduction: The objective of this lab experiment is to calculate the acceleration due to gravity, by
conducting a video analysis on an object, which in this case is a small ball, as it falls to Earth. This is
done by first making a video of the falling ball, with a meter rule set aside it, using a smartphone.
Then, the video is uploaded on an app called, Tracker, where we obtain three graphs, namely
position vs. time, velocity vs. time and a second position vs. time graph, which is linearized to y = y0 -
1
gt2 , where y = vertical position in m, y0 = vertical position, at time = 0 s in m, g is the acceleration
2
due to gravity (9.81 m/s2) and t is the time in s. The three graphs are then analyzed in spreadsheet,
to obtain a value for the acceleration due to gravity, g and compare it to the accepted local value of
g = 9.81 m/s2.The acceleration due to gravity is the rate at which the velocity of an object increases
as it falls, without considering buoyancy or frictional forces such as air resistance. This acceleration is
caused by the gravitational attraction between the falling object and the earth and has a value of
about g = 9.81 m/s2. This also implies that, for each second, that an object falls, its speed increases
by 9.81 m/s. Two important equations that we encounter in this experiment after comparing the
motion of the falling objects to what we expect from the theory of projectile motion are: y = y0 + v0,y
1
t - gt2 , where y is the vertical position in m, y0 is the vertical position at time = 0 s, v0,y is the
2
vertical velocity component at time = 0 s , in m/s, t is the time in s and g is the acceleration due to
gravity in m/s2 and vy = v0,y – gt , where vy is the vertical component of the velocity in m/s, v0,y is the
vertical velocity component at t = 0 s in m/s, g is the acceleration due to gravity in m/s 2 and t is the
1
time in s. Another important equation to consider in this experiment is: y = y 0 − gt2 , where y is
2
the vertical position in m, y0 is the vertical position at time = 0 s , g is the acceleration to gravity in
m/s2 and t is the time in s. This equation is obtained after linearizing position vs. time graph when
vo,y = 0, vo,y = the vertical velocity component at t = 0 s.

Methods and Procedures: The image below shows the setup of the lab experiment. The materials
used are: digital camera from a smartphone to make a video of the falling ball, a meter rule to
determine the position of the ball at each point of fall and an app called, Tracker was installed on the
computer, which is used to analyze the video and obtain the required graphs for this experiment.
The experiment was conducted as follows: My lab partner and I, chose a place in the lab room,
where we had access to proper lighting, to shoot the video. Proper lighting is very important in this
experiment so that the motion of the ball is not blurred, and we can trace it easily. My lab partner
held the meter rule and dropped the ball carefully, while I was making the video. We then
transferred the video to the Tracker app, to analyze it. Since the video window was scalable, we
made it as large as possible, to make observation easy. We played the video and then we decided
where to place the origin and what axes would be convenient for analyzing the motion of the ball.
Next, we clicked on the “Create” > “Point Mass” button to select point and started tracing the
motion of the ball by adding points to the video. We kept on analyzing the video frame by frame
until the ball started to move and added points until the end of the motion. After adding points in
the video, we got a table and a graph of values in the background. The values obtained, which were
in pixels and pixels/sec were then converted to m and m/s by clicking on one end of the meter stick
and dragging to the other end, to make a dialog box appear, in which we input the distance as 1 and
the units as m. We then got the values of the real distances and velocities in m and m/s respectively
in the table and in the graph. After obtaining a convenient origin and axes for our graphs, we
recorded the values for time, position and velocity in Excel, to proceed with data analysis.
 Smartphone
with digital
camera
incorporated
to make
video

Tennis ball Meter rule

to determine
position of
falling ball

Image 1: The image 1 above shows how the experiment was set up. A smartphone with a digital
camera incorporated in it was used to make the video, a meter rule was used to determine the
position of the falling ball and the ball used was a tennis ball. After making the video, it was analyzed
in an app called, Tracker, which was installed in a laptop.

Results and Analysis

Position, y Change in Time, t (s) Change in Vertical Change in
Change in
(m) position, Δ time, Δt (s) componenttime vertical
y (m) of velocity, component
squared
vy (m/s) of velocity,
over 2,
Δt^2/2Δvy (m/s)
(s^2)
-0.150 0.00 2.33 0.00 0.00
-0.140 0.0100 2.37 0.0300 0.580 0.00 0.000556
-0.110 0.0400 2.40 0.0700 1.01 0.430 0.00222
Table 1: Table 1 above shows some values of position(m), change in position(m), time(s), change in
time(s), vertical component of velocity(m/s), change in vertical component of velocity(m/s) and
change in time squared/2, obtained after analyzing the video frame by frame on the tracker app.
Please refer to appendix below for full table of values and sample calculations.

Graph 1: The graph 1 below has a parabolic shape and shows the relationship between the position
of the ball, which was measured using a meter rule and time.

The graph shows the relationship between the

Position of the ball and Time.
1.2
1
Position (m)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time (s)
 The graph is a linearized relationship between the
change in Velocity in the vertical direction, delta vy
and Time
4
delta vy(m/s)

3 y = 8.27x + 0.00448

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
time (s)
Graph 2: The graph 2 shows
the linearized relationship between the change in velocity in the vertical direction (Δvy) and time.
This graph was linearized using the equation vy = v0,y – gt, from the lab manual. The graph obtained is
a straight line of best-fit, with equation y = 8.27x + 0.00448, where the slope, m (8.3±0.6) m/s2 is
equal to -g and the y-intercept, b (0.0±0.1) is equal to v0,y. Therefore, the acceleration due to
gravity(g) in this case is, (-8.3±0.6) m/s2.

The graph is a linearized relationship between the change

in Position, delta y and the Square of Time over 2, 1/2t^2
1.2
1
y = 10.99x + 0.03071
delta y (m)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
1/2 t^2 (s^2)
Graph 3: The graph 3
shows the linearized relationship between the change in position, delta x and the square of time
1
over 2, ½ t^2. This graph was linearized using the equation y = y0 − 2 gt2 , from the lab manual. The
graph obtained is a straight line of best fit, with equation y = 10.99x + 0.03, where the gradient, m
(11.0±0.2) m/s2 is equal to -g and the y-intercept, b (0.03±0.01) is equal to y0. Therefore, the
acceleration due to gravity in this case is, (-11.0±0.2) m/s2.

Discussion: The values and uncertainties of g and v0,y obtained from the linearized graph of Δvy
against time(t) are (-8.3±0.6) m/s2 and (0.0±0.1) respectively. Comparing the value of g obtained
with the theoretical value of g, which is 9.81 m/s2, we can see that the difference between the
values of g is (9.8-8.3= 1.5) mls2 and their uncertainties is 0.6, which fall within 3 standard deviations
of the expected value (1.5/0.6= 3), showing that there is a poor agreement between the values of g.
On the other hand, comparing the value of v0,y obtained, with the theoretical value of v0,x , which is
0, we can see that the difference between the values of v0,y is (0.0-0= 0.0) and their uncertainties is
0.1, which fall within 1 standard deviation of the expected value (0.0/0.1=0.0), showing that there is
a good agreement between the values of v0,y. Next, the values of g and y0 obtained from the
linearized graphs of Δy against (1/2)t^2 are (-11.0 ±0.2) m/s2 and (0.03±0.01) respectively.
Comparing the value of g obtained with the theoretical value of g(9.81m/s 2), we can see that the
difference between the values of g are (11.0-9.8=1.2) m/s2 and their uncertainties is 0.2, which fall
beyond 3 standard deviations of the expected value (1.2/0.2 = 6), showing that there is a very poor
correlation between them. One thing to be noted is that there was a poor correlation between the
value of g from the v-t graph and the actual value of g(9.81 m/s2) and a very poor agreement
between the value of g from the s-((1/2) t^2) graph and the theoretical value of g. One reason for
this could be because, the error in the uncertainty of t2 is higher than the one in t. Therefore, g was
more affected in the position vs. (1/2) t^2 graph. Comparing the value of y0 obtained from the
position vs. (1/2) t^2 graph with the theoretical value of y0, which is 0, we can see that the difference
between the values of y0 is (0.03-0=0.03) and their uncertainties is 0.01, which fall within exactly 3
standard deviations of the expected value (0.03/0.01=3), showing that there is a poor correlation
between the values of y0. Please refer to appendix for sample calculations. On the other hand, we
encountered a few limitations in this experiment. One being that, the meter rule was not upright as
it was held by a human. Therefore, it was hard to record the exact values for the position of the
falling ball. A way to account for this problem is to clamp the meter rule to a bench, so that it does
not move and stay straight. The experiment was conducted in the lab class, where the light intensity
was not strong enough, so that the motion of the ball in the video appeared blurred. We can prevent
this by conducting the experiment in a small room, with LED lights, giving proper lighting. The values
of g obtained in the experiment had poor agreements with the theoretical expected value of g. This
is possible, because the ball was not released from the same height each time and g depends on
height. This problem can be solved by clamping the ball at a point each time and slowly unclamps it
when it needs to be released. Next, a digital camera in a smartphone was not a very ideal way to
make the video because it resulted in a blurred motion of the ball, which in turn made it difficult to
analyze the movie frame by frame in the tracker app, resulting in less accurate data. We can account
for this issue by using a more sophisticated camera, to get a clearer video of the motion of the ball.
Another thing is that, the video was analyzed in the tracker app by humans. Humans tend to make
errors, resulting in less accurate data. A way to account for this problem is to repeat the experiment
and calculate an average of the values obtained to improve measurement. Additionally, a few points
were ignored during analysis, because the motion of the ball was blurred. Ignoring those points,
gave good graphs, however, the values of g still had poor agreements with the theoretical value of
g(9.81 m/s2). In an attempt to improve measurement, we decided to measure at the middle of the
blurred ball, because its center of gravity is located at that specific point. The values of g obtained in
the experiment were quite close to 9.81 m/s2, however a more accurate experiment could have
been conducted, considering all the improvements listed above.

Conclusion: The purpose of this lab experiment was to calculate the acceleration due to gravity, by
conducting a video analysis, on a tennis ball, as it falls to earth. The ball was released from a certain
height and a meter rule was used to determine the positions of the ball while falling. A video was
recorded using a smartphone and analyzed in an app, called tracker. The video was carefully
analyzed frame by frame and points were added as the ball was in motion. The table of values and
three graphs namely position vs. time, velocity vs. time(v-t) and position vs. ½ t^2 were obtained
after adding points. The position vs. time graph had a parabolic shape and the other two graphs
were straight lines of best fit. The slope of each graph gave a value for the acceleration due to
gravity, g. The value of g for the v-t graph was found to be (-8.3±0.6) m/s2 and had a poor agreement
with the theoretical expected value of g(9.81m/s2) and v0,x (y-intercept) had a value of (0.0±0.1) and
was found to have a good agreement with the theoretical expected value of v0,y(0). The value of g for
the position vs. ½ t^2 graph was found to be (11.0±0.2) m/s2 and had a very poor agreement with
the theoretical expected value of g(9.81m/s2) and y0 had a value of (0.03±0.01) and was found to
have a poor agreement with the theoretical expected value of y0(0).
References: 1. EN PH 131 Lab 1 Manual on eclass. The lab manual was a very useful tool in writing
the introduction and methods and procedures for this lab report. Also, all the equations used in this
report were obtained from the lab manual. 2. The following site was helpful in writing the
introduction: https://classroom.littlebits.com/lessons/experiment-determining-the-acceleration-
due-to-gravity#:~:text=This%20acceleration%20is%20the%20result,32%20ft%2Fs%2Fs.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my lab partner, Yassin Mousa, for conducting the
experiment with me. I would also like to thank my teaching assistant, Mr. Ronaghikhameneh Nima,
for guiding me well through the lab experiment. A special thanks to my classmate, Tabish Ahmad
Khan, for sharing a picture of the set up of the experiment with me.

Appendix
Position, y Change in Time, t (s) Change in Vertical Change in Change in
(m) position, Δ time, Δt (s) component vertical time
y (m) of velocity, component squared
vy (m/s) of velocity,over 2,
Δvy (m/s) Δt^2/2
(s^2)
-0.150 0.00 2.33 0.00 0.00
-0.140 0.0100 2.37 0.0300 0.580 0.00 0.000556
-0.110 0.0400 2.40 0.0700 1.01 0.430 0.00222
-0.0700 0.0800 2.43 0.100 1.36 0.780 0.00500
-0.0200 0.130 2.47 0.130 1.71 1.13 0.00889
0.0400 0.190 2.50 0.170 2.00 1.42 0.0139
0.110 0.260 2.53 0.200 2.49 1.91 0.0200
0.210 0.360 2.57 0.230 2.83 2.26 0.0272
0.300 0.450 2.60 0.270 3.01 2.43 0.0355
0.410 0.560 2.63 0.300 3.24 2.66 0.0450
0.520 0.670 2.67 0.330 3.36 2.78 0.0555
0.630 0.780 2.70 0.370 3.38 2.81 0.00672
0.740 0.890 2.73 0.400 3.53 2.95 0.0800
0.870 1.02 2.77 0.430 0.0938
Table 1: Table 1 above shows the full set of values of position(m), change in position(m), time(s),
change in time(s), vertical component of velocity(m/s), change in vertical component of
velocity(m/s) and change in time squared/2, obtained after analyzing the video frame by frame on
the tracker app.

Sample calculations for comparison

|(𝑎 − 𝑏)| ± √((𝛿𝑎)^2 + (𝛿𝑏)^2 )….formula used to calculate values required to compare results
obtained from the experiment with the theoretical expected values.

Comparison between:
The values and uncertainties of g and v0,y obtained from the linearized graph of Δvy against time(t)
with the theoretical expected values of g, which is 9.81 m/s2 and v0,y, which is 0.

g= (-8.3±0.6) m/s2 and v0,y= (0.0±0.1)

For g, |(9.8 – 8.3)| ± √((0)^2 + (0.6)^2 ) = (1.5±0.6) m/s2

Then, 1.5/0.6 = 3 (lies within 3 standard deviations of the expected value, 9.81, thus poor
agreement).

For v0,y, |(0.0 − 0)| ± √((0.1)^2 + (0)^2 ) = 0.0 (lies within 1 standard deviation of the expected value,
0, thus good agreement).

Next,

The values and uncertainties of g and y0 obtained from the linearized graph Δy against (1/2)t^2 with
the theoretical expected values of g, which is 9.81 m/s2 and v0,y, which is 0.

g= (-11.0±0.2) m/s2 and y0= (0.03±0.01)

For g, |(11.0 – 9.8)| ± √((0.03)^2 + (0)^2 ) = (1.2±0.2) m/s2

Then, 1.2/0.2= 6 (lies beyond 3 standard deviations of the expected value, 9.81, thus very poor
agreement).

For y0, |(0.03 − 0)| ± √((0.03)^2 + (0)^2) = (0.03±0.01)

Then, 0.03/0.01 = 3 (lies exactly within 3 standard deviations of the expected value,0, thus poor
agreement).

-Bhuvish Sharma Mooroteea