SPH3U

Catapult Project

Introduction:
Describe projectile motion and the mathematics involved.

Projectile motion is a trajectory (parabola) that an object moves along when thrown
in the air, and it involves two perpendicular components, which are the horizontal motion
and the vertical motion. To be more speci ic, a projectile refers to an object that moves
under one and only force — gravity. The force of gravity only impacts the vertical motion by
causing vertical acceleration at the constant rate of 9.8m/s2. Thus, the horizontal velocity
always remains the same throughout the projectile. Likewise, the two dimensions have
different vector quantities and mathematics involved and must be discussed separately.
Firstly, to ind the horizontal velocity ( vx = Δdx/ Δt.), it is necessary to measure the
light time and the distance travelled. Since the horizontal velocity remains constant, that
number can be considered as the initial horizontal velocity(vix), the adjacent side of the
velocity triangle. Taking a step further, if we know the launch angle, we can ind out the
initial vertical velocity(viy) using tangent and the initial velocity(vi) using the Pythagorean
theorem.
The next step is to ind the inal vertical velocity(vfy), which can be done simply by
substituting the knowns( viy and t ) into one of the kinematic equations: vfy = viy - 9.8t. Then,
we can derive the inal velocity(vf) through the Pythagorean theorem as we know both
horizontal and vertical components of it.
Lastly, we already know that the vertical velocity becomes zero at the maximum
height. So from the kinematic equation, vfy2 = viy2 - 19.6dy, or 0 = viy2 - 19.6dy, solving for the
unknown, the vertical displacement, and adding the number to the initial height of the
catapult will give the maximum height.

Hypothesis:
How do you think launch angle will affect the range and maximum height of a projectile?

If the angle is steeper, the projectile will have a higher maximum height because steeper
angles have larger initial vertical velocity. And the projectile will reach the maximum range
sin2(θ ) v 2
at the angle of 45 because the formula for the distance is , where the highest
g
possible value of sine is 1 at 90˚;½ of 90 is 45.

Method:
Draw a picture of your catapult and label it.
f

f
f
f

 bucket

arm stop (angle

control)
arm band hanger

Rubber
band

frame

arm holder
(arm is
inserted)

fulcrum
base

Describe any decisions that went into your catapult’s design, and list any websites you used
to help you design your catapult.

1. We wanted to create a rigid catapult, so we made a square-shaped base that has

three layers of popsicle sticks on each side. We also added two layers of popsicle
sticks on the fulcrum (between the two sides of the base) to make a stronger anchor
for the catapult arm.
2. The requirement for this project was to create a catapult that has at least two
working launch angles. In order to ful ill the requirement, we came up with the idea
of an angle controller, which can be inserted at the top centre, basically stopping the
arm at a certain angle; the deeper you put the angle controller, the lower the launch
angle will be. So our catapult is capable of projecting objects at not only two but
numerous angles — any angle we want.
3. We put an arm holder at the bottom of the fulcrum, using an empty marker and
drilling a hole in the middle so that the catapult arm can be inserted. This reduced
the complicated process of ixing the arm position with rubber bands, which is what
most videos instructed. In addition, most videos/websites connected the popsicle
sticks using rubber bands. However, we used a hot glue gun to have the strongest
and most durable bond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILLzBWGNh9A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx9rXwn_hSs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpLFC_SOpXs
https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/catapult-physics.html

Results:
Complete the results pages attached to this package.

 Conclusion:
What worked well in the design, and why?
I think it was a well-designed catapult because it was strong enough to throw the
marshmallow at a long distance; the ceiling of the hallway was so low for our catapult that
we had to resume the experiment on the irst loor with a much higher ceiling. After all, the
key is to choose a design that is able to endure a strong pull-back force, which greatly
depends on the structure of the base. As mentioned, we had a square base with additional
support at the fulcrum. Personally, I was pleased with how well the angle controller worked
because it was a very original idea and plus, it helped us a lot in eliminating dif iculty when
setting up and experimenting with different angles.

What worked poorly in the design, and why?

I am satis ied with the design we came up with, but if we were to build another one in the
future, I would like to improve on the small details we missed. First of all, I learned that we
have to use a tighter rubber band. Without any awareness, we simply selected a loose
rubber band that had lost its elasticity, which might have resulted in less tension when the
arm was pulled back. Also, I would like to pay more attention to the horizontality and
verticality because after building the catapult, I noticed that some parts were aslant. So I
realized that a rough eye measure must be avoided next time. Lastly, it’d have been better if
we put several marks on the angle controller because it would have prevented any angle
changes when it accidentally moved back and forth. But overall, it was successful, and the
catapult was irm and secure throughout the entire experiment.

How closely did your theoretical calculations for range and light time match the
experimental values? Why do you think the values were different?
On average, there was a 15% difference between the predicted elapsed time and the actual
light time; and a 35% difference between the predicted range and the actual range. The
values are different because of two main factors: height and velocity. When predicting the
light time, I didn’t take into consideration that each angle would have a different initial
height but just assumed they had the same launch position. This de initely gave a numerical
gap between the theoretical calculations and experimental values since the elevation of the
object affects the time of light as shown:

Also, I assumed that all launches would have the same velocity. In fact, the velocity varies in
every single trial as human force (the amount of power we put into when pressing the arm)
f
f
f

f
f

f
f

 is, unfortunately, irregular. And so the reason why the range has a greater %difference is
that it is a product of two slightly inaccurate numbers — time and velocity.

Comment on the validity of your hypothesis.

The irst hypothesis was the catapult will shoot the object higher if the launch angle is
steeper. This statement was proved true, but the experiment did not support the second
statement, which hypothesizes that the catapult will launch the farthest at 45˚. Based on my
result, the range was the longest at the most acute angle(71˚) and the shortest at the obtuse
angle (45˚).

Out of pure curiosity, I did my own calculations to ind out what the issue is.
sin2(θ ) v 2
We know that r  = .
g
sin2(71)9.342
Angle 1:
9.8
sin2(60)6.082
Angle 2:
9.8
sin2(45)4.32
Angle 3:
9.8
It is correct that Angle 3 has the biggest value of sin2(θ), but the problem is the different
velocities; and apparently, Angle 1 has the greatest velocity. I was able to draw a conclusion
that the angle of 45˚ was not able to give the maximum range because the initial speed was
different in the irst place. Therefore, conducting an experiment that has an unvarying
initial speed will help reinforce the idea outlined.
f

 Angle 1:
Launch Position dx
Launch Angle
θ dx dy
dy
θ
71 0m 0.2m
(add this into your (use this in your y
range!) calculations!)

Elapsed Time, Range, Horizontal Velocity,

Launch
∆t ∆dx vx

1 1.81s 5.84m 3.23m/s

2 1.81s 5.55m 3.07m/s
3 1.81s 5.14m 2.84m/s
Average 1.81s 5.51m 3.04m/s

v ⃑i x = 3.04m/s
v ⃑iy = =
8.83m/s
v ⃑i = 9.34m/s
∆ d ⃑y =
0.2m a ⃑y = -9.8m/s2
v ⃑f y = -8.91m/s
v ⃑f = 9.41m/s

max height: 4.18m

Predict the elapsed time and range for your other launch angle(s):

Angle Elapsed Time, ∆t Range, ∆dx

 60
1.11s 3.38m

45 0.68s 2.07m

 Angle 2:
Launch Position dx
Launch Angle
θ dx dy
dy
θ
60 0.11m 0.18m
(add this into your (use this in your y
range!) calculations!)

Elapsed Time, Range, Horizontal Velocity,

Launch
∆t ∆dx vx

1 1.28s 4.78m 3.73m/s

2 1.28s 4.22m 3.29m/s
3 1.28s 4.47m 3.49m/s
Average 1.28s 4.49cm 3.50m/s

v ⃑i x = 3.50m/s
v ⃑iy = 6.06m/s
v ⃑i = 7.00m/s
∆ d ⃑y =
0.18m a ⃑y = -9.8m/s2
v ⃑f y = -6.48m/s

v ⃑f = 7.36m/s

max height: 2.05m

Calculate the % difference of your elapsed time and range from your predictions:

 Actual − Predicted
% Di f f = × 100%
Predicted
Predicted Actual % Difference

Elapsed 1.11s 1.28s 15.3%

Time, ∆t

Range, ∆dx
3.38m 4.49m 32.8%

Angle 3 (Optional): 30
Launch Position dx
Launch Angle
θ dx dy
dy
θ
45 0.14m 0.15m
(add this into your (use this in your y
range!) calculations!)

Elapsed Time, Range, Horizontal Velocity,

Launch
∆t ∆dx vx

1 0.78s 2.74m 3.51m/s

2 0.78s 3.05m 3.91m/s
3 0.78s 2.73m 3.50m/s
Average 0.78s 2.84m 3.64m/s

v ⃑i x = 3.64m/s
v ⃑iy = 3.64m/s
v ⃑i = 5.15m/s
∆ d ⃑y =
0.15m a ⃑y = -9.8m/s2
v ⃑f y = -4.00m/s

 v ⃑f = 5.41m/s

max height: 0.83m

Calculate the % difference of your elapsed time and range from your predictions:
Actual − Predicted
% Di f f = × 100%
Predicted
Predicted Actual % Difference

Elapsed 0.68s 0.78s 14.7%

Time, ∆t

Range, ∆dx
2.07m 2.84m 37.2%