Projectile Motion

By: Damon Scott

IA2
IA2
RATIONALE:

A central concept in physics, projectile motion has applications in a variety of industries, including engineering,
athletics, and ballistics. It explains how an object is propelled into the air and travels along a specific parabolic
path based on its initial velocity launch angle and the mass of the projectile. Several calculations and formulas
have been devised to assist in understanding the motion of projectiles. Being able to anticipate and analyse
the behaviour of moving objects is crucial in many practical applications.

Elasticity is generally described in physics as the relationship between the amount of stress placed on a
substance and the subsequent strain or deformation. According to Hooke's Law, this ratio is constant for a
given material as long as the stress does not exceed the material's elastic limit. (Young & Freedman, 2020).

The energy that is stored in an object when it is stretched or compressed is referred to as elastic potential
energy. In many commonplace phenomena, including springs, rubber bands, and bungee cords, this energy
is released when the object returns to its initial shape or location. (Fundamentals of Physics (2018))

Range Equation:
R is the range, or horizontal distance travelled by the projectile

v is the initial velocity of the projectile

2
v sin (2θ) g is the acceleration due to gravity
R=
g
θ is the angle of projection with respect to the horizontal

The range equation disregards air resistance and presumes level terrain. Additionally, it assumes that the
projectile is fired from the ground up, so the projectile's height is not taken into consideration.

ORIGINAL EXPERIMENT:

The original experiment consisted of two parts. Firstly, we tested the elasticity of the
rubber band to solve for the k value of our given rubber band which was then used as
the value for force in the equations.

Subsequently, we proceeded to launch the same rubber band at a predetermined

angle while adjusting the drawback and recorded the range on five separate

1
occasions for each of the ten levels of tension.

2
RESEARCH QUESTION:

What is the relationship between the distance a projectile travels in relation to difference in drawback whilst all
other factors (mass, angle, and location) are kept constant?

METHOD

ORIGINAL METHOD

The original method measured the range of a projectile as the drawback of a rubber band increased. 5 data
points were recorded for 10 different distances of drawback. The launch angle, position of launch and weight
of projectile were kept constant.

MODIFICATIONS

To ensure that the testing was exclusively done in regard to the relationship between drawback and distance
modifications were made to ensure all other variables were kept constant.

 The initial velocity (drawback) was changed throughout to redirect the findings of the experiment
 The angle remained constant at 22.47 degrees (maintaining initial angle)
 A single rubber band was used for all tests (constant ‘k’ value to refine the results)
 The ruler was held in place using a retort stand (maintaining initial angle to refine accuracy)
 The location of launch was kept constant (consistent initial range value)
 Five data points were made for each of the ten drawback distances (extending the amount of data)

RISK MANAGEMENT

To ensure the safety of both environment and person several risks were acknowledged and accounted for as
to minimise the likelihood of any accidents.

Risk Danger Management

Projectiles flying unpredictably Could hit somebody in Maintaining attention and caution and
the eye avoiding the projectiles path whilst recording

Environmental Considerations Harming local wildlife Accounting for all rubbish primarily rubber
bands as they could be mistaken for food by
bords or lizards (“APA PsycNet,” 2023).

QUALITATIVE OBSERVATIONS:

3
 OBSERVATION IMPACT

ELASTICITY OF RUBBER BAND DEPLETED Influenced data as the ‘k’ would have fluctuated
THROUGHOUT EXPERIMENT

ANGLE AND LOCATION OF RULER CHANGED influenced the launch angle and initial location

HIGH WIND VELOCITY Impacted results particularly those with more

drawback

RUBBER BAND BOUNCE Slightly increased each result

INCONSISTENT DRAWBACK METHOD Increased error percentage and allowed for

human error

RESULTS

RAW DATA FROM TESTING RESULTS:

These are the raw results after multiplying the shoe length calculations by the length of shoe in meters (SI
Units). They consist of 5 data points for each of the ten different drawback lengths. Calculations for standard
deviation, percentage uncertainty, percentage error and standard error were also used via the formulas:

√
n

∑ (x i=1−x) Standard Error¿

σ
Uncertainty =
Max−Min
σ= i+ 1
√n 2
n−1

Uncertainty
% Uncertainty = ×100
Mean Value
Theoretical−experimental
% Error= ×100
Theoretical

Eg. At 0.19 Drawback

Max−Min t 1+t 2 +t 3+t 4 + t 5

Uncertainty = M ean=
2 5

4 5.5755+5.292+6.426+ 6.8355+5.859
M ean=
5

M ean=5.997 6
 6.83550−5.29200
Uncertainty =
2

Uncertainty =¿ 0.77175

Uncertainty
% Uncertainty = ×100
Mean Value

0.77175
% Uncertainty = × 100
5.9976

% Uncertainty =12.8676 %

OUTLIERS

Formulas for Outlier testing:

Lower outlier=Q1−( 1.5× IQR ) Higher outlier=Q 3+(1.5 × IQR)

Eg. At 0.34 Drawback

IQR=Q 3−Q1

IQR=9.82800−8.0325

IQR=1.7955

Lower=8.0325−(1.5 × 1.7955) Higher outlier=9.82800+(1.5 ×1.7955)

Lower=5.33925 H igher outlier=12.5212 5

∴ 4.56750<5.44925 meaning 4.56750 is an outlier ∴ 10.74150<12.52125 meaning there is no

outlier

AVERAGES FROM ABOVE TABLE

Average data from the 5 data points in previous table is used to ensure accurate results.

5
AVERAGE RANGE VS. DRAWBACK GRAPH + ERROR

This graph displays the linear trend between the amount of drawback and the distance the rubber
band travels including error bars. Several factors impacted the data hence why the graphs r^2 value is
only 0.63 and the error bars are so broad. The data was majorly influenced by several factors and
shows why the actual data is so inconsistent in comparison to the linear trend. Although in general it
could be seen that as the drawback increased by a square there was a proportional linear increase in
the distance of the rubber band. Although, the last point on the graph did not reflect this, the
reasoning behind this was that as the projectile spent more time airborne it was exposed to more
wind resistance which decreased the rubber bands velocity.

{time ∝wind resistance }.

The first three points also have a higher gradient in comparison to the rest of the graph. This is
because the testing equipment began a certain height off of the ground which can be found by using
trigonometric functions.
These calculations tell us that the launch angle is equal to
24.22°

opp
sin ⁡( )=24.22°
1
−1
sin 24.22=opp

opp=41.02cm(0.4102m)

Knowing that the muzzle height was 0.4102m we can assume that all of the recorded data likely had increased
values although specifically the first few data points as the difference between airborne time and time before
the rubber band returns to its initial height is much more substantial than the later data points.

6
ERROR PERCENTAGE

Max−Min
This table takes the natural data and uses the formula , this gives us the yellow data
2
at the bottom which allows us to make the error bars on the graph.

7
SOLVING FOR ELASTICITY

Tables from solving for k value via testing with weights (as seen in image)

Increasing increments of 50 g weights were applied to a rubber

band and the extension was recorded. This was used to solve
for the k value by finding the m value (gradient) in the general
equation for a straight line (
y=mx+c ) whilst substituting in
for x and y. This found a k value of 191.28

THEORETICAL DATA VS ACTUAL DATA + EVALUATION

This graph compares the theoretical data to the actual data and vividly displays several findings such as how
the theoretical data is much more linear in comparison to the actual data. This shows that the testing was
heavily flawed and had major room for improvements. Although the theoretical displays that there should be a

8
roughly proportional relation between the change in drawback and the range and this is also reflected slightly
in the actual data.

We can see a systematic error from the third to eighth point on the actual data graph as each point is roughly
the same amount above the linear trend. This could be attributed to the wind which could have decreased
throughout that time period, hence increasing the data.

It should also be noted that the theoretical data does not consider the human error and ulterior factors
such as wind, shot accuracy and ruler stability. This could invalidate the comparisons made between
theoretical and actual data.

1. Conclusion

Through analysis of various graphs based on data found from testing the relationship between drawback and
range whilst keeping other variables constant conclusions were drawn as to how increasing the drawback
within the system influences the range of a projectile. As seen by graphing the actual data against the
theoretical data there is a clear correlation between the range of the projectile and increase in drawback. The
relationship is that the range of projectile increases at a rate proportional to the square of the drawback value
whilst all other variables within the system are kept constant. Although the validity of this claim is
questionable due to the number of ulterior factors that reduced the quality of results, the linear trend is still
visible and clearly shows the relationship.

EVALUATION

EVALUATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS

The three relevant graphs presented in this report’s R2 values were: 0.8029, 0.0287 and 0.63. These showcase
that the accuracy of the results was very minimal and that the graphing and findings in relation to the ‘k’ value
(which had the R2 value of 0.0287) was highly inaccurate and would likely influence the rest of the data which
could invalidate many of the results found rom calculations.

The on the average range vs drawback graph the error bars were very broad particularly at higher drawback
values which shows that at higher drawbacks and whilst the projectile is exposed to more air resistance the
results are less accurate Air resistance ∝ velocit y 2.

The difference in theoretical and actual graphs has been mentioned throughout, although to summarise it
showcases the accuracy of results and shows that although showing similar trends are dissimilar due to several
factors that aren’t accounted for in the theoretical

IMPROVEMENTS AND EXTENSIONS

Limitations Effects of Limitations Improvements

Wind impact on rubber band
As seen in figure a there were Test inside to avoid wind without
wind speeds of 18km/h air-conditioning
(weather.com, 2023) which
increased or decreased each
result majorly particularly the

9
 results with more airtime which
would have been why the error
percentage was ¿ 2 for the last 4
points on the graph.

Ruler’s location and angle
shifting
This affected its angle, height, and
starting distance which impacted
the results and could also been
why the error percentage was
high on the last data points.
Have a more rigid method to hold
the ruler in position and regularly
check its location and angle.

Recording using a shoe length

Shoe lengths are inconsistent as Using a tape measure or similar
each step cannot be perfectly the measuring equipment to ensure
same length or at the right angle accuracy
which allows for human error.

Shot inaccuracy Throughout testing, the launches The recording should start at the
veered off to the left or right as ruler and travel at the required
seen in figure b. This made the angle to reach the rubber band.
results further inaccurate as the
testing was only conducted
assuming one axis and not
accounting for the true range of
the projectile.

Assuming 100% energy In the theoretical calculations, it
conversion was assumed that 100% of the
Elastic Potential Energy (EPE) was
converted to Kinetic Energy (KE).
This false assumption impacted
the calculations and results found
considering the initial velocity.
To address this, the EPE should
not be factored in at 100%, and
further investigation should be
conducted to determine a more
realistic percentage of energy
conversion.

figure figure b
a
BIBLIOGRAPHY
References

10
3.3: Projectile Motion. (2018, April 12). Physics LibreTexts.

https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book

%3A_Physics_(Boundless)/3%3A_Two-Dimensional_Kinematics/

3.3%3A_Projectile_Motion

5.3 Projectile Motion - Physics | OpenStax. (2020). Openstax.org.

https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/5-3-projectile-motion

APA PsycNet. (2023). Apa.org. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fapl0000155

Bhandari, P. (2021, November 30). How to Find Outliers | 4 Ways with Examples & Explanation.

Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/outliers/

BYJU'S. (2022, July 4). What is range in projectile motion-. Byjus.com; BYJU’S.

https://byjus.com/question-answer/what-is-range-in-projectile-motion/

Hamm, K. (2020, August). 4.4 Projectile Motion. Bccampus.ca; Pressbooks.

https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/humanbiomechanics/chapter/3-4-projectile-motion-2/

#:~:text=Projectile%20motion%20is%20the%20motion,only%20the%20acceleration%20of

%20gravity.

Initial Velocity Components. (2022). Physicsclassroom.com.

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Initial-Velocity-Components

Physics IA2 2021. (2021). Studocu; Studocu. https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/central-

queensland-university/introductory-physics/physics-ia2-2021/24349196

Projectile Motion. (2023). Webassign.net.

https://www.webassign.net/question_assets/unccolphysmechl1/lab_3/manual.html

Projectile Motion: Initial Velocity & Launch Angle | Science Ready. (2019). Science Ready.

https://scienceready.com.au/pages/full-flight-projectile-motion-initial-velocity-and-launch-

angle#:~:text=Initial%20Velocity%20and%20Launch%20Angle,right%2Dangled%20triangle

%20from%20vectors.

11
Tallebudgera, Queensland, Australia Weather Forecast and Conditions - The Weather Channel |

Weather.com. (2023). The Weather Channel. https://weather.com/weather/today/l/-

28.12,153.43?par=google

12