Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ProfF

Determining Maximum Height Lab Deliverable

Recommended Posts

Guest ProfF

[glow=red,2,300]Regents Physics Lab Deliverable #4: Determining Maximum Height[/glow]

Without using the term "human error," explain why measuring the maximum vertical leap of an athlete using a stopwatch and kinematic equations has such a high percent error. If this could be re-designed using more accurate state-of-the-art measuring equipment, describe the more modern experimental setup and methodology. Post your solution in paragraph form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This had such a high percent error mainly because the methods of measuring time and distance aren't good methods to use. The modern experimental setup and methodology would consist of being connected with a form of wireless electronics hooked up to the body and connected to a computer. When jumping the electronics will signal that movement is taking place and will show time in the air as well as the distance jumped. This will be a more better form because it will not rely on us students to be responsible and precise with our measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the method we used to calculate the reachable height, there are many ways in which errors or inaccuracies could have been introduced in to our measurements. We had people in our group that consisted of varying heights, weights, etc that put different limits on our individual heights. However, collectively, the process of jumping up and sticking pieces of tape against the wall isn't nearly as accuracte as it possible could be. Instead, laser sights, slow motion cameras and other things, such as the equipment commonly seen in Mythbusters, could provide more accurate data. With this things you can maximize your results accuracy. If people had the equipment doing the work such as "putting a label" where there maximum height is, then they'd be able to focus more on just jumping, instead of multi tasking. While in mid-air theres a slight delay before you place a peice of tape on the wall, which means that most likely the tape is LOWER than what your capable of. Also, there really aren't any guidelines that instruct you how to jump, if you should be moving, things like that. With this its clear to see that if there were better techniques available, then the percent error would be lower as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The methods that students used in the Determining Maximum Height Lab were very inaccurate. There were plenty of ways that an error could occur, which makes the results unreliable. The reasons for this is that using a meter stick to measure pieces of tape that are stuck on the wall isn't a use of modern technology. The technology that was used in a previous lab, which is the motion detector that calculated velocity, distance, etc. could be useful for more accurate results of this lab if it were able to be used to the movement and height of the student who jumps and sticks the tape on the wall. Also, a student's jump might be very different for each trial, and by the 3rd trial their heights could be lower because they are tired from jumping. If better technology was used in this lab the percent error would decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From determining the maximum height, our group had a 98% error. This result came in because all we had for our experiment were pieces of tape and a meter stick. To have more accurate results, we would need a laser pointer to calculate how high each person goes, and by hooking it up to a computer, we would receive more accurate results from electronic modifications. The electronic modifications would signal when one person jumps for the first time, and stop when the person hits the floor. Then, the data would go onto the computer, and the highest point set would be the maximum height. With state of the art technology at hand, the percent error would be reduced to 2%, even 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sbutler93

The experiment that we preformed to find a person's vertical leap was not very accurate and had a high percentage of error. There were many potential sources of error involved in this lab. The first potential error for this lab was that a person pressed the start button and the stop button on the stopwatch. People do not have instant reaction time, and so it is not possible for the person timing press the stop and start buttons on the stopwatch at the same time that the jumper's feet leave and touch the ground. For this reason, any time recorded by a human will be somewhat faster or slower that the actual time. Another source of error in this lab was that the jumper had to put a piece of tape on their finger and stick it to the wall while they were in the air. The jumper was supposed to stick the tape to the wall while they were at their maximum height, but most of the jumpers were only able to stick the tape to the wall on their way down from the jump. This is because the force of gravity was sometimes needed to separate the jumper's fingers from the tape. The tape would stick to the wall, and gravity would pull the person back toward the earth allowing their fingers to be free from the tape. Another source of error for this lab was that it was difficult to properly read the meter stick from the floor while it was up in the air. The distance measurements recorded were probably either greater than or less than the actual distance between the two pieces of tape. A more modern setup for this experiment would include automatic timers and computerized lasers. When the person jumped, the timer would start the instant that their feet left the ground and stop at the instant that the person's feet made contact with the ground again. Their height could be calculated by two computerized lasers projected onto the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest youngmoneylaxer15

The procedure that we were forced to use in this lab experiment caused the extremely high percent error. We had very unadvanced materials to say the least. All the materials we had to calculate our measuremnts were a stopwatch, a meter stick, and pieces of tape. There were many different components that caused inaccuracies in our groups data like the different sizes of the people as well as their different athletic ability. Along with the fact that you have to stick a piece of tape on the wall during your jump which is not an easy thing to do and will definitely impact your maximum height. Since you cannot focus soley on jumping. If we were able to do this lab again with better technology the best way to do it would be to do your jump on a pad that senses the time when you are in the air to when you land back on the pad and automatically calculates your maximum height based on how long you were in the air for. This would eliminate any possiblity for human error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest blahh_xox

The procedure used in determing maximum height brought about relativley high % errors. This couldve happened for many reasons including timing problems. No one has instant reaction time so when the timer was started and stopped couldve been delayed and affected the times collected for method A. Another source of error couldve came from using and reading the tape measure/ruler. Two different people couldve gotten two different distances for the same measurement becasue of how the tape/ruler was placed against the wall. The different perceptions of measurment couldve skewed the real measurments and contribute to the high % error. The lab could be improved if better equipment was used rather than a ruler and tape. By using equipment such as a motion detector camera could more accuratley track the height of the jump. A precise procedure would also help becasue each group did things differently and calculated all different data. A procedure couldve helped students complete the lab in a more accurate way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest hoopsgirl

This lab had such a high percent error because the methods to measure how high we jumped weren't accurate. We used tape which in itself isn't an accurate way to measure. Also using a meter stick isn't as accurate as it could be. To be more accurate you would need some sort of machine that could determine how high you jumped in a certain amount of time. If there were heat pads that would recognize where you touched exactly then it would be more accurate than sticking tape on the wall. Also if you were stepping on a type of floor that would recognize when you jumped off of it and came back down it could calculate the time better than if someone used a stopwatch, which we used in this lab. I don't know much about state of the art equipment but this seems like it would reduce our percent error drastically and make for a more accurate lab. When we did this lab we couldn't be 100% sure about any of our data because there were many sources of error that could throw everything off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest kitcat94

On Tuesday, our lab group attempted to calculate our maximum displacement. In Method A, each person had to mark with tape how high they could reach with their feet on the ground and then jump and slap tape on the wall. Another team member would time how long their feet were in the air and, with the time measurement, would calculate their displacement using kinematic equations. In Method B, a group member would measure the distance between the tape marks for each person to get the displacement. These two measurements in Method A and Method B were supposed to match up. However, our percent error ranged from 32% to 124% overall. The reason that so many problems happened in this lab is due to the fact that each individual person’s measurement varied. This occurred because, since everyone had to jump, there wasn’t consistency in who measured the time in Method A with the stopwatch. Different people measuring meant that people pressed the buttons earlier or later than one another, creating differences. Also, putting tape on a wall and measuring isn’t very precise. It’s basically impossible for someone to jump and put tape on a wall in a perfect straight line to create accurate measurements. In order to make this lab more accurate, one would have to use a device that could sense exactly when a person’s feet left the ground and returned again. Also, high speed cameras and lasers like they used on Mythbusters could help pinpoint exactly when a person was at the top of their jump and calculate an exact difference in height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest graciejeanne103

It seems that those students responsible enough to get this assignment done before 10:50 on the day before it's due, agree that there should be lasers and the like in order to make our most recent lab better, and less vulnerable for *cough* human error, or just errors in general. But I say keep it the way it is; I barely got through this lab with all of the error, and I certainly wouldn't be able to figure it out with pressure pads and umm high speed cameras. Plus, the sticky tape part was just plain fun. Personally, my measurements had one of the lowest percentage of error (only 45%!) and so I don't want to have to suffer for other peoples' poorer jumping skills.... All in all, the lab was just right for me, so leave it be! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest redsoxfan

The procedure used in this experiment caused a tremendously high percent error. The materials that we were given were out dated and unreliable to get accurate data for this lab. The materials that we were given to use in this experiment were tape, stopwatch and a meter stick. Since each person in our group had to stick a piece of tap on the wall to mark how high they jumped, they were not focused on jumping as high as they could but on sticking the tape to the wall. Another example that caused different data was the height difference between each person in the group and how athletic each student was. If we could do this lab again with accurate and better materials the percent error would be lower if not non percent error. First of all, to calculate the how high you jump we could use the system that is used at the NFL combine, which calculates or max jump very accurately. Also if there was a motion sensor that sense when your feet leave the ground and when they hit the ground to calculate how long you were in the air for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eaglesde

The procedure that was used during class to determine the maximum height had a rather higher, above average percent error. Due to the use of inaccurate materials that require you the tester to need to get everything spot on for corrret data, this lab can count to be rather insefficiant. Use of a stop watch you can get the timing wrong, a meter stick you dont read the measurements correctly, tape that doesnt stick in the right spot to measure your height jumped, and a wall standing in your way. I believe the greatest way to determine maximum height would be to use a sort of motion detector that activates when you takeoff from the ground that records how much time your in the air plus another pad that you must hit that stops the time and marks how high you have jumped. This method will not only limit the percent error but give you better results as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest smc512

While determining how high a person can jump, many errors can take place that affect the accuracy in the measurements. The time isn't always exact and measurements might be a few millimeters off. In order to achieve more accurate results in determining maximum jumping height, new and modern technology could really help lower the percent error. One technique that could improve the time measurement includes a sensory pad that the person stands on. While the person is touching the sensory pad, the time would not move. However, as soon as the person left the sensory pad a timer would begin. Upon return to the sensory pad, the timer would stop, therefore, having completely accurate time. Technology could also help in determining the height of which the person jumped by using an electronic ruler (if they existed). The ruler would be extended to exactly where the person's reach tape is and where their jump tape is. Therefore, the exactly distance would be known instead of measurement only to the tenth decimal. Overall, technology could really help eliminate the percent error in determining how high a person can jump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest youngmoneylaxer15

During this lab the we had a very hard time calculating close percentages to the actual accepted vaue of the numbers we were calculating. The percent error was so high because of the kind of tools we were using. We were using stop watches which allows for alot of human error because the human attributes are not as precise as other technologies. We also only had tape and rkulers to measure the jumps of people. Not only are those materials not very accurate but we had to acount for things such as the different people in our group jumping and there heights and weight. Also the lengths of peoples arms could have contributed to the high percent error. This lab could be improved by using better more precise technology.

Emmy Poccia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mramsey

The method we used to determine the acceleration of gravity was so far off the accepted value of 9.81 meters per second because of the lack of equipment and technology made available to us to use. If I were to redo this and get as close to 9.81 as possible I would drop the ball from the ceiling and time it using a highly sensitive video camera that started once the ball left the ceiling and ended exactly when it hit the ground. This would eliminate the incompetence of humans reaction time and get much more accurate resulting in a better estimation of acceleration due to gravity. I would also begin by dropping the ball from a measured interval, such as 5 feet, from a string attached to a pole. This would also make it easier because you know the exact height the ball is being dropped from. The use of state-of-the-art equipment that is much too expensive for a school district to afford (*don’t need to raise taxes any more). But if possible to go to a college science lab and do this experiment, a much more accurate result will be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest gryffindor

This method of determining acceleration due to gravity had such a high percentage of error because of how inaccurate the measurements were. The person who timed the drop was different from the person who dropped the ball causing error in the time. The distance also might have been a little different for each drop. Both these inaccuracies would cause a significant precent of error in the calculation of acceleration due to gravity. This experiment could have been improved by having a mechanical arm, set at 1 meter above the ground, drop the ball and when the arm releases the ball a sensor would go off starting a timer on the computer. This timer would stop when the ball hits a sensor that is on the table below the arm. This would fix any timing inaccuracies and surely help the experiment to have less of an error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest baseball9

The procedure that we used to find the athletes maximum vertical leap was very inaccurate and had a very high error percentage. The best way to do it is to mimic what sports sciences did and connect alot of high-tech electronics to the body of the athlete to calculate there maximum jump. You need to have alot of high-tech equipment to track every movement and then transher them to some special computer software in order to anyalyze the data

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest xcrunner92

In this lab we determined the maximum height we could jump through two different methods. The first method we used was timing the length of time someone was in the air. The other we we determined the maximum height we could jump was jumping as high as we could and sticking a piece of tape on the wall for however high we jumped. After collecting our data we discovered that we had a very high percent of error which could have resulted from a assortment of things. For example the timing done with the stop watch's was not very accurate at all which would have thrown off our lab. In retrospect if we were to do this lab again we could aquire a more high tec. timing system that is more accurate. This timing system would be composed of lazer's that could recognize the exact moment you left the ground and returned to it. With this technology are percent of error could be majorly reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blitzer720

The kinematics and Gravity Lab had such a high percent error because of the materials the students used to find the results of the tests, and also how effectively the students were able to use them. For example, the use of a stopwatch is hard as it is, but when you have to start and stop the watch in a extremely short time period while having to work at the command of a few different people, the difficulty only increases. This is exactly what happened in the lab: the communication at times was off, the clock wasnt started or stopped correctly, or the ball simply didnt drop at the exact height. Moving to Method A would cover the same difficulties, while Method B had perception errors due to the inability of knowing the exactly where he/she reached, and having to rely on their eyesight to determine the spot. State-of-art mearuring equipment would certainly help this lab if it were to be redesigned. Such as the first test where the ball was dropped. There could be a gate-like technology designed so that when the ball went through the first gate at the height of 2 m, and traveled down to the second gate at the bottom, the exact amount of time could be measured without the use of a stopwatch or as much communication. Method A could be improved with some sort of timing pad, where the student could stand on the pad, and once they jumped, there time would start recording, and as they hit the pad again when they came down, the time would stop. This again would get rid of stopwatch errors, and have no communication errors at all. Method B could be also easily improved by the use of a vertical jump measurer, those similar to the ones used in the combines for professional sports. The measurer would be set at the persons outstretched hand, and than the person would jump strait up, and whatever they were able to knock over to the side would become there max height in the air. This lab had alot of technological errors because of the way the students used and communicated with them, but could be easily improved through the teconology ive stated above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest erockest3

During our lab, our goal was to calculate the maximum height that we could jump. However, when we finished we realized that our data was all over the place. Using the equipment that we had there was no way to get exact data. Instead, our data had a very high percent error. The only way to get close enough data in the experiment is to use advanced equipment that automatically measures the height and time of your jump. You would need to have high Tec motion sensors of some kind that connect directly to something more advance like a computer in order to get exact data. If we would be able to this kind of equipment only then would our data be exact or close to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest smunger

Skylar Munger

My high percent of era could be attributed to the inaccuracy in the tools i used to measure. The tools I used to measure time were a stop watch. the person operating the stop watch had to be exact to hitting the button when the jump starts and again when the jump ends. This can be inaccurate because there is a delay in seeing and hitting the buttons. My percent era was around 36% witch I would consider unreliable data. A way in collecting this data could be improved would be using one of these laser gates to measure the total time the jump took.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest strawberry

The results we got from the maximum height lab were mainly inaccurate for many reasons. we used tape to mark the maximum height the person jumped, which could quite possibly have been off by a centimeter. also, the method of timing yourself jumping and landing is not accurate. Therefore, we had very high percent errors. The human reaction is slower than the actual time you started or landed your jump. to improve these results to be more accurate, and have a lower percent error, we could create lasers that sit level to the ground, also hooking up to the computer. then, once our feet leave the path of the laser, it starts timing you until your feet come back down through the laser. This would calculate a more precise time because instead of a human brain taking time to react and press a button, a sensitive device will trigger the time to be recorded the moment you pass through it. Also, to measure this accuratley, we could have a big ruler taped to the wall, and have some sort of colored marking on the tips of our fingers. So, when you hit the wall, it would mark in color the exact height you were in the air. These new, and accurate methods will make the lab more accurate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Method A, which we used in class to measure maximum height, had a very high percent error. Because we had to time ourselves in the air, it might have been difficult to actually get a correct time. I know in my group we had to redo our jumping about a zillion times because we had issues with starting and stopping the stopwatch correctly, so the lack of accuracy with the stopwatches most likely contributed to the extremely high percent error. Instead of someone measuring the amount of time one is in the air with a stopwatch, a more accurate, state-of-the-art way to measure time would be to use a motion detector. Putting it at ground level, it could show how long one would be off the ground when they jump. It'd be more reliable than having someone time it themselves, because the monitor would be the one timing the space between the jump instead of a person working a stopwatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Terms of Use

The pages of APlusPhysics.com, Physics in Action podcasts, and other online media at this site are made available as a service to physics students, instructors, and others. Their use is encouraged and is free of charge. Teachers who wish to use materials either in a classroom demonstration format or as part of an interactive activity/lesson are granted permission (and encouraged) to do so. Linking to information on this site is allowed and encouraged, but content from APlusPhysics may not be made available elsewhere on the Internet without the author's written permission.

Copyright Notice

APlusPhysics.com, Silly Beagle Productions and Physics In Action materials are copyright protected and the author restricts their use to online usage through a live internet connection. Any downloading of files to other storage devices (hard drives, web servers, school servers, CDs, etc.) with the exception of Physics In Action podcast episodes is prohibited. The use of images, text and animations in other projects (including non-profit endeavors) is also prohibited. Requests for permission to use such material on other projects may be submitted in writing to info@aplusphysics.com. Licensing of the content of APlusPhysics.com for other uses may be considered in the future.

×
×
  • Create New...