Guidance for Writing Lab Reports for PHYS 233:

The following pages have a “sample” lab report that is a model of what we expect for each of
your lab reports in PHYS 233. It is written for a lab experiment that we do not actually require of
you, but it uses many of the tools that are needed for the actual labs. Note carefully all of the
details in the text, figures, tables, and appendices. Especially note the abstract on the cover
page. A well-written abstract conveys the essential purpose of the lab as well as the general
results and conclusions. A good abstract tells us that the rest of the lab report is likely well
thought-out and executed. The remainder of this page reprints instructions for lab reports and
their grading, taken from the course web pages.
********************************************************************************************************
Lab Reports
At the end of the experiment, your team will hand in a complete lab report. This is your chance
to communicate your work in a style similar to what published scientific journals would require
(with a little extra info for your TA). This report must include at least these three components:

• A Journal: A clear and concise discussion of what you did, how you designed your experiment, and
what results you got, written so that an absent student could understand and repeat your
experiment. If you followed false trails that you gave up, you should explain them here with your
reasons for giving them up.

• Data and Interpretation: A presentation of your data in a form that would be easy for an absent student
to understand. Include a discussion of what your data means, what conclusions you’ve drawn
from your data, and a persuasive case to convince your reader that your conclusion is
valid. Keep in mind that a record of raw (un-manipulated) data would never be published by a
scientific journal--what of the data that you have collected is necessary to make your case? Is
this data sufficient and convincing?

• Evaluation: After you’ve had a chance to see what data and conclusions other groups have gotten, it’s
important to go back and reconsider what you’ve done. Here is where you discuss how you could
improve upon your experiment (design or analysis), in light of what you learned during lab and
during the class presentations. This is also the place to expand upon the interdisciplinary nature
of these labs--how are the things you have studied in other science classes connected to what
you have done and learned here? Do you see other possible applications of these research
ideas and experimental techniques?
• Title, Abstract, Introduction: These need to be highly descriptive, to encapsulate the goals, motivation,
and conclusions.

Criteria for grading a Lab Report: pts

Design and thoughtfulness. Did your team do a careful and thoughtful job in creating your 7
experiment, and was this thought reflected in the journal?
Clarity and completeness. Did your team explain your experiment so that someone could 8
reproduce it?
Persuasiveness. What conclusions did your team draw from your data? Were you able to back 8
up these conclusions with this data in a convincing way?
Evaluation. After observing the experiments of other groups, were you able to critique your own 7
lab, propose constructive changes, or explain why your experiment was better than those of
your classmates? (The question you are answering in your evaluation is, “If I got to re-do this
experiment next week, how would I do it differently?”)

  1  
  
“The  Acceleration  of  Falling  Objects”  
 
 Lab  Report  
PHYS  233  
 
Authors:   Ada  Yonath         Journalist  
    Barbara  McClintock     Data  Interpreter  
    Carol  Greider       Critic  
Rosalyn  Yalow     Checker  
 
 
Abstract:  In  this  Lab  for  PHYS  233,  our  goal  was  to  test  the  idea  that  simple  
objects  fall  with  a  constant  acceleration  due  to  the  force  of  gravity.  We  chose  
three  round  balls  of  different  mass,  size,  and  surface  roughness  to  see  what  
factors  might  influence  their  motion.  These  were  dropped  under  identical  
conditions,  their  motion  recorded  by  video,  and  their  motion  tracked  with  
video  analysis  software.  The  resultant  accelerations  show  that  the  chosen  
balls  had  accelerations  that  differed  by  more  than  the  experimental  
uncertainties.  This  does  not  suggest  that  Newton’s  second  law  combined  
with  the  force  of  gravity  fails.  Instead,  it  indicates  that  the  role  of  buoyancy  
forces  and/or  air  resistance  cannot  be  ignored  for  some  of  these  balls.  
 
 
Contents:  
 
I.     Introduction  
II.       What  was  done  (Journal)  
III.     Data  and  Interpretation  
IV.     Evaluation  and  Conclusions  
    Appendix  
 
 
 
 
   

  2  
I.  Introduction  
 
In  this  lab  we  tackled  the  question,  do  objects  fall  with  the  acceleration  due  to  gravity?  That  
is,  how  typical  is  it  that  when  you  drop  an  object  it  actually  accelerates  with  the  predicted  
value  of  g=9.8  m/s2?    This  is  the  prediction  if  you  start  with  Newton’s  second  law  and  
throw  in  the  fact  that  the  force  due  to  gravity  at  the  surface  of  the  Earth  can  be  reduced  to  
F=mg  (where  m  is  the  mass).  Of  course  we  know  this  cannot  always  be  true  –  the  motion  is  
very  different  when  an  open  parachute  is  involved,  for  example.  However,  what  about  
simple,  everyday  objects?  We  decided  to  test  this  on  three  different  balls,  each  dropped  
from  rest  in  the  lab.  These  balls  had  different  sizes,  masses,  and  surfaces,  so  there  is  some  
opportunity  for  them  to  interact  differently  with  air.  Just  dropping  them  side-­‐by-­‐side  was  
not  too  revealing,  so  instead  we  pulled  out  the  web  cam  and  video  analysis  tools  and  tried  
to  do  measurements  that  are  accurate  enough  to  answer  the  question:  do  these  three  balls  
fall  with  the  acceleration  of  gravity?  
 
II.  What  was  done  (Methods  and  Materials/Journal)  
 
We  selected  three  balls  that  were  handy:  
 

 
Figure  1:  Balls  1,  2,  &  3  photographed  against  a  centimeter  ruler.  
 
  Ball  1    “SS”   Ball  2  “BB”   Ball  3  “Styro”  
mass   37.9  gm   2.3  gm   1.7  gm  
diameter   0.75”  =  18.8  mm   36  mm   ~46  mm  
composition   Stainless  steel   Hollow  plastic   Solid  styrofoam  
Table  1:  Physical  parameters  for  Balls  1,  2,  and  3.  
 
In  the  lab  room  (PHYS  154)  we  set  up  a  location  next  to  a  table  where  each  ball  could  be  
dropped  from  a  height  of  about  2  meters  above  the  floor,  and  observed  for  most  of  that  
drop  by  a  (LogiTech)  web  cam  attached  to  the  lab  table  computer  monitor.  A  meter  stick  

  3  
was  propped  up  vertically  at  the  drop  location  to  permit  calibration  of  the  video  images.  
The  distance  from  the  camera  to  the  drop  site  was  ~2.5  m.  We  placed  dark  panels  on  the  
wall  behind  the  drop  site  to  make  it  easier  to  see  the  moving  balls  in  the  video.  
 
The  web  cam,  operated  by  the  VirtualDub  program  on  the  lab  PC,  was  set  to  operate  at  30  
frames  per  second.  A  higher  frame  rate  would  have  been  useful,  but  we  could  not  get  it  
above  30.  At  first  we  thought  we  should  have  a  nice  bright  image,  so  under  the  “Capture  
Filter”  feature  (under  the  Video  tab),  we  set  the  exposure  time  to  a  high  setting.  This  does  
give  a  brighter  image,  but  it  turns  out  it  does  so  by  increasing  the  effective  shutter  opening  
time.  This  means  that  when  video  was  taken  of  a  falling  ball,  each  frame  showed  a  streak  of  
multiple  ball  images  that  lengthened  as  the  speed  increased.  It  did  prove  possible  to  extract  
good  data  by  carefully  estimating  the  center  of  each  streak,  but  we  decided  this  was  not  
optimal.  We  went  back  to  Capture  Filter  and  reduced  Exposure  to  the  minimum  value,  and  
made  up  for  the  poor  brightness  by  increasing  Gain  to  its  maximum  value.  This  led  to  very  
noticeable  pixel  noise,  but  the  ball  position  was  very  sharp  at  even  the  highest  speeds.  We  
concluded  that  this  was  the  better  configuration.  
 
We  recorded  one  video  for  each  of  the  three  balls  at  high  Exposure  setting,  and  repeated  
this  for  all  three  balls  at  the  low  Exposure  setting.  These  videos  were  imported  into  ImageJ,  
and  the  trajectories  tracked  using  the  Manual  Tracking  plugin.    
 
First  we  calibrated  the  videos  by  identifying  the  pixel  numbers  at  the  top  and  the  bottom  of  
the  meter  stick,  which  gave  ~550  pixels  per  meter.  This  calibration  led  to  an  erroneous  
value  of  g,  however,  which  is  discussed  in  a  later  section.  The  Manual  Tracking  input  
calibration  values  were  1  pixel  =  1818  microns,  and  one  frame  =  0.0333  seconds  (from  30  
fps).  
 
Manual  Tracking  produced  an  output  file  with  a  line  of  text  for  each  click  on  the  ball  per  
frame.  The  program  records  the  X  and  Y  values  for  each  clicked  position,  and  calculates  
successive  positions  (in  microns)  and  speeds  (in  microns  per  second).  There  was  a  slight  
change  in  the  horizontal  position  for  each  falling  ball  which  slightly  increases  the  calculated  
speeds,  but  this  was  so  small  that  we  ignored  it,  treating  the  calculated  speeds  as  the  
vertical-­‐only  speeds.  
 
Each  video  led  to  its  own  output  file  (e.g.  test2ss.xls)  that  was  subsequently  opened  by  
Excel  (and  saved  in  the  full  .xlsx  format  to  save  charts  etc.).  The  speed  data  was  converted  
in  a  new  column  to  units  of  m/s,  instead  of  microns/s.  The  speed  was  plotted  versus  time  
(in  seconds).  Using  Excel’s  built-­‐in  analysis  function,  a  Trendline  was  fit  to  the  data.  It  was  
important,  however,  that  the  data  was  limited  to  the  time  in  free  fall,  since  data  points  
before  free  fall  would  be  included  in  a  Trendline  and  skew  the  results.  The  Trendline  
formula  specifies  the  slope  of  the  best  fit  speed  versus  time,  which  is  the  acceleration.  
These  values  are  the  principal  results  of  this  lab  experiment.  
 
 
 
 

  4  
III.  Data  and  Interpretation.  
 
We  acquired  results  from  six  measurements,  three  from  the  high  Exposure  mode  and  three  
from  the  Low  exposure  mode.  A  typical  chart  is  shown  here,  for  Ball  2  at  low  Exposure:  
 

Ball  2,  Low  Exposure  

6  

5   y  =  9.9586x  -­‐  0.3281  

4  
Speed  (m/s)  

3  
ImageJ  output  
 

2   Linear  (ImageJ  output)  

1  

0  
0   0.1   0.2   0.3   0.4   0.5   0.6  

-­‐1  
time  (seconds)  
 
Figure   2:   Plot   generated   by   Excel   showing   the   calculated   speed   versus   time   from   ImageJ  
Manual   Tracking,   plus   a   best-­‐fit   “Trendline”.   The   slope   of   this   line   should   give   the  
acceleration   of   this   falling   ball.   The   y-­‐axis   error   bars   assume   an   uncertainty   in   clicking   on  
the  correct  center  of  the  ball  of  about  1.5  cm.  
 
Note  that  the  data  points  are  quite  well  characterized  by  a  straight  line,  so  the  slope  of  the  
best-­‐fit  trendline  should  give  the  acceleration.  All  six  measured  accelerations  are  given  in  
the  following  table:  
 
  Acceleration  (m/s2)    
High  light  exposure,   Low  light  exposure,  
Δ  
long  shutter  time   Short  shutter  time  
Ball  1   11.6   12.0   -­‐0.4  
Ball  2   9.9   10.0   +0.1  
Ball  3   8.4   8.0   +0.4  
Table  2:  Slopes  of  the  best-­‐fit  trendlines  for  all  six  videos;  these  slope  values  are  the  nominal  
accelerations  of  the  balls,  although  they  are  systematically  too  high.  The  last  column  gives  
the  difference  in  the  two  measurements  on  each  ball,  a  measure  of  the  experimental  
uncertainty  (reproducibility).  

  5  
  
One  problem  with  these  results  is  obvious:  the  heavy  stainless  steel  ball  has  a  calculated  
acceleration  greater  that  the  known  value  of  g  (=9.8  m/s2).  This  must  be  due  to  a  
calibration  error  in  the  ImageJ  Manual  Tracking  process.  Either  the  assumed  time  interval  
between  frames  is  too  small  by  20%,  or  the  distance  calibration  is  off  by  20%,  or  some  
combination  of  these  two  effects.  We  are  unable  to  determine  the  origin  of  this  discrepancy.  
We  argue,  however,  that  any  reasonable  error  here  would  likely  apply  equally  to  all  of  the  
measurements,  so  it  is  permissible  to  rescale  all  of  these  data  by  a  correction  factor  of  
12.0/10.0  =  0.83  to  get  the  true  accelerations.  
 
Note  the  last  column,  where  the  difference  between  accelerations  deduced  from  the  two  
configurations  is  given.  We  present  this  as  a  practical  estimate  of  the  uncertainty  in  the  
measurements.  Separately  we  could  try  to  fit  trendlines  to  the  data  taking  into  account  the  
uncertainty  in  each  data  point,  but  the  nominal  error  bars  are  rather  small  (see  Figure  2).  
Either  way,  however,  there  is  a  clear  conclusion:  The  acceleration  of  these  three  balls  is  not  
the  same.  The  measured  differences  are  outside  the  likely  uncertainties.  At  least  two  of  
these  balls  do  not  satisfy  the  prediction  that  a=g.    
 

Comparison  of  both  data  sets  

13  
acceleration  (m/s2)  

12  

11  

10   accel  (high)  

9   accel  (low)  

8  

7  
Ball  1   Ball  2   Ball  3  
 
Figure  3:  Acceleration  data  from  Table  2  comparing  results  from  the  high  exposure  and  low  
exposure  modes.  It  is  clear  that  the  drop  in  acceleration  observed  with  the  lighter  balls  is  
much  greater  than  would  be  expected  from  the  uncertainties  in  the  measurements,  based  
on  the  good  reproducibility  shown  in  this  plot.  
 
Let’s  assume  that  Ball  1  has  an  acceleration  close  to  g.(That  is,  we  assume  the  value  of  12.0  
m/s2  s  would  be  9.8  m/s2  if  VirtualDub/ImageJ  were  properly  calibrated.)  Why  would  Ball  
2  and  Ball  3  be  different?  
 
The  acceleration  due  to  gravity  does  not  depend  on  mass,  because  Fnet=ma=mg,  so  a=g.  But  
if  there  is  a  force  FR  like  air  resistance  or  buoyancy  that  does  not  depend  on  mass,  then  we  
get  Fnet=ma=mg-­‐FR,  so  a=g-­‐FR/m.  The  new  correction  term  caused  by  FR/m  will  be  smaller  
when  the  mass  is  big,  like  with  Ball  1,  but  becomes  much  more  important  when  the  mass  is  
small,  such  as  with  Ball  2  and  Ball  3.  The  actual  cause  of  this  force  is  assumed  to  be  due  to  

  6  
the  presence  of  air,  a  low  density  fluid.  That  could  be  due  to  the  buoyancy  force,  or  the  
friction-­‐like  resistive  force  caused  by  the  rough  styrofoam  surface.  Further  studies  would  
be  required  to  determine  the  most  likely  origin.  
 
IV.  Evaluation  
 
After  hearing  the  presentations  from  the  other  groups,  we  realized  that  we  made  one  big  
mistake  in  the  design  of  this  experiment.  By  not  choosing  our  balls  properly,  we  were  
unable  to  determine  what  caused  the  change  in  acceleration.  Instead  we  should  have  
focused  on  one  variable  at  a  time:  
 
A.  Choose  three  balls  made  of  the  same  material  and  having  the  same  diameter,  but  with  
two  of  them  being  lighter  (e.g.  hollow).  Then  all  three  have  the  same  frictional  resistive  
force  but  different  weights.  Any  change  in  acceleration  would  be  due  to  the  buoyancy  force.  
 
B.  Or  choose  three  balls  with  the  same  diameter  and  the  same  mass  but  with  different  
surface  roughness.  Then  any  change  in  acceleration  could  only  be  due  to  air  resistance.  
 
If  we  did  this  experiment  over  again,  we  would  choose  the  balls  in  this  more  systematic  
way  in  order  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  additional  force.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

  7  
Appendix:  
 
 
 

 
 
Appendix  Figure  1:  These  are  screenshots  from  the  videos  recording  the  fall  of  the  stainless  
steel  ball  (Ball  1).  On  the  left  is  the  video  from  the  high  exposure  mode;  note  that  the  overall  
image  is  bright  and  sharp,  except  that  the  ball  is  a  blurred  streak  due  to  the  long  shutter  
opening  time.  On  the  right  is  the  video  from  the  low  exposure  mode;  because  there  is  less  
light  per  frame,  the  individual  pixels  show  obvious  noise.  (Gain  was  increased  to  the  
maximum  setting  to  make  the  image  visible.)  Most  important,  however,  is  that  the  ball  
shows  no  evidence  of  blurring  or  streaking,  making  the  determination  of  its  position  much  
more  accurate.  
 
 
 

  8  
 High  exposure  results  
6  

5  

4  
speed  (m/s)  

3   Ball  1  (ss)  

2   Ball  2  (bb)  

1   Ball  3  (styro)  

0  
-­‐0.2   0   0.2   0.4   0.6  
-­‐1  
time  (seconds)  
 
 
 

Low  exposure  results  

6  

5  
speed  (m/s)  

4  

3   Ball  1  (ss)  

2   Ball  2  (bb)  

1   Ball  3  (styro)  

0  
-­‐0.2   0   0.2   0.4   0.6  
time  (seconds)  
 
 
Appendix  Figure  2:  Plots  of  the  speed  versus  time  values  generated  by  Manual  Tracking  in  
ImageJ  for  both  the  high  and  low  exposure  modes.  Acceleration  values  were  derived  from  
the  slopes  of  these  curves.  

  9