Joshua Thasiyantharajah - Mrs.

Preece

18th November 2023.

SUVAT & RP3

Equipment:
 Stop plate
 Stand and clamp
 Electromagnet
 Steel ball bearing – diameter 10mm
 Meter ruler – resolution 1mm
 Electronic timer – resolution of 0.001s

Method:
1. We adjusted the position between the stopping plate and the electromagnet so that h is
0.555m, measured using the meter ruler.
2. Then we switched on the supply to the electromagnet and hung the ball bearing from it.
3. We then reset the timer to zero and switched off the electromagnet
4. After that, the ball was released, and we read and recorded the time, to the table, once the ball
hit the stopping plate
5. We reduced h by 0.05m each time, step 4 was repeated until h was 0.155m to have 10 points to
plot on a graph and to obtain a range of 0.500m.

-We could have started off with a value larger than 0.555m but we were limited due to a short stand
- We used this method rather than the light gate method because that method was a lot harder for a
few reasons, such as making the ball drop at the exact same distance each time whereas in the method I
used the ball was always in a fixed position which is hard to move. In the light gate method, the initial
velocity will not be zero as before passing through the first light gate the ball would have a non-zero
velocity making the equation s = ut + ½(at^2) more difficult and plotting on the graph more difficult but
in the method I used, the initial velocity was always 0 so it was a lot easier. Another reason why we
avoided the light gate method was because you must accurately drop the ball through both light gates,
which was hard to do. Overall, the electronic timer method was a lot better to use as there were= a lot
less factors to consider so it made the whole practical more accurate to find the value of g.

Variables
- The independent variable is the distance, h (m), between the stopping plate and the
electromagnet measured with a meter ruler with an uncertainty of +/- 1mm
- The dependent variable is the time (s) of how long the ball takes to reach the stopping plate
measured with an electronic timer with a resolution of 0.001s
- One control variable is the position of the stopping plate, we drew around the outline of the
plate to record its initial position and where it's going to stay for the rest of the whole practical
because we don’t know if parts of the plate sensitivities are equal
- Another control variable is that we used the same ball, to ensure we have the same mass and
size of the ball which was 10mm in length of the diameter.
- Another control variable is, we kept the electromagnet in one place. We made one person
watch the position of the electromagnet as one untightens and tightens the clamp while
changing the clamps height on the stand.

Table Of Results
Height Time (s) Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 2h/t
(m) (ms^-1)
0.555 0.336 0.336 0.336 0.336 0.336 0.336 3.304
0.505 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.321 0.321 3.146
0.455 0.301 0.301 0.301 0.301 0.301 0.301 3.023
0.405 0.287 0.287 0.287 0.287 0.287 0.287 2.822
0.355 0.269 0.269 0.269 0.269 0.269 0.269 2.639
0.305 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 2.47
0.255 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 0.227 2.247
0.205 0.207 0.207 0.207 0.207 0.207 0.207 1.981
0.155 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 0.177 1.751
0.105 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 1.400
 S

- I did not find error bars for the x axis because the resolution for the electronic timer was too
high, it was 0.001s so it's exceedingly small in proportion to the values on the graph, so it is too
hard to plot.
- For the y-axis I found the errors bars, but the percentage uncertainties were all less than 1% or
was just above 1% which is far too small so once again it was too hard to plot.
- The gradient of the line of best fit is g
- Resolution/average value x100 0.001/0.330 x 100 = 0.303% 0.001/0.2522 x 100 = 0.397%
- 0.303% + 0.397% = 0.7% as an uncertainty
- So, g is 9.84ms^-2 (+/–) 0.7%

To find the average value a found the range for height and time and divided it by 2 and using my
resoltuion of both the timer and then the ruler I divided it by the average and find each of the
percentage uncertainty by multiplying each value by 100 and added them together.

1) The percentage difference to the real value is (my value – real value)/real value x 100

- (9.84 -9.81) / 9.84 X 100 = 0.305%

- I found the real value of g on (https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?gn) accessed on the
21st November 2023

This shows that my obtained result was accurate, however an even more accurate result may have been
obtained if we had peer reviewed if the measurement of the distance between the electromagnet and
the stopping plate was accurate enough or done right, because this would have ensured the distance
would we correct instead of placing wrong heights in our equations to form inaccuracy in results.

2) We took 5 repeats, one from each person in our group to ensure the results were varied and to avoid
anomalies and we found the mean of the repeats

3) highlighted in green in the method

4) 0.001/0.555 = 0.18%
5) As the ball falls the air resistance increases so the ball's velocity is slowed down, it takes longer to
reach the stopping plate, so g is lowered from my result. Acceleration = v/t and the velocity is decreased
so the acceleration is decreased.