IB Physics TSM

Physics teacher support material http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/IBDocs/IA/files/howToUse_en.
html
Physics teacher support material
Introduction
Introduction
How to use this teacher support material
How to use this teacher
This teacher support material is designed to support new and experienced support material
teachers in the application of the internal assessment criteria for the group The design criterion in
4 courses. The criteria can be found in the Diploma Programme Biology physics internal assessment
guide, Chemistry guide and Physics guide (published March 2007).
Errors and uncertainties in
physics internal assessment
The first part has three sections of general guidance for teachers. These
focus on the design criterion, errors and uncertainties, and manipulative Manipulative skills in
skills. To look at these, simply select the section you wish to look at from physics internal assessment
the menu on the right.
Assessed student work
The second part shows the application of the criteria in the assessment of Overview
practical work. It consists of a series of investigations or part investigations
Investigation 1
by students that have been assessed by moderators using the assessment
criteria. To look at the investigations featured in the assessed student Investigation 2
work, select the overview table from the menu on the right and select a
Investigation 3
specific investigation by clicking on the title. Each investigation can also be
accessed by selecting the link that leads directly to it from the menu on the Investigation 4
right.
Investigation 5
Investigation 6
Investigation 7
Investigation 8
Investigation 9
Investigation 10
© IBO 2007
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:33
Physics teacher support material http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/IBDocs/IA/files/design_en.html
Introduction
Introduction
The design criterion in physics internal
assessment support material
The design criterion in

Aspect 1 of the design criterion requires students to formulate a focused
problem or research question and to identify independent and dependent
variables, and relevant controlled variables. It is essential that the teacher Errors and uncertainties in
gives the student an open-ended prompt. The topic must allow for a variety physics internal assessment
of different approaches.
Manipulative skills in
There are two types of appropriate teacher prompts.
The first is where the dependent variable is given and the
student must select the independent variable as well as Overview
appreciate the controlled variables. An example here is when Investigation 1
the teacher tells the student to investigate one factor that affects
the deflection of a cantilever. Investigation 2
The second type of prompt is where neither the dependent Investigation 3

nor independent variables are given. An example of an Investigation 4
open-ended teacher prompt would be “Investigate a leaking can
of water”. The student must identify and select the variables. Investigation 5
Some variables in this example include the liquid depth,
Investigation 6
temperature or viscosity, the can size, shape or location, the
time to drain the can, the distance the water squirts, the air Investigation 7
pressure above the liquid level, and so on.
Investigation 8
A student’s research question is appropriate when it asks for a Investigation 9

relationship or function between two quantities, for example, “How does Investigation 10
the length of a pendulum relate to the period?”
© IBO 2007
Inappropriate research questions often look for a specific value, for
example, “What is the value of gravity?” or “What is the specific heat
capacity of an unknown liquid?” Teacher prompts that ask for the
verification of a known law or theory are also inappropriate, for example,
“Confirm Newton’s second law of motion” or “Verify the equation
PV = nRT”. Teacher prompts that give both the dependent and
independent variables are also inappropriate, for example, “Investigate the
relationship between the period of a pendulum and the length of the
pendulum”.
Examples of appropriate teacher prompts

Here is a list of appropriate teacher prompts for aspect 1 of the design
criterion, and a possible student research question response. Students
must carefully define the variables and appreciate the controlled variables.
Batteries and lemons
Electrical cells can be produced using lemons or

potatoes, along with electrolytes and electrodes of
different metals. Investigate the factors affecting the
voltage produced by such a cell.
Dependent: The dependent variable is given.
Student How does the spacing between electrodes

might ask: affect the voltage?
Bicycle stopping
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:33
Physics teacher support material http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/IBDocs/IA/files/errors_en.html
Introduction
Introduction
Errors and uncertainties in physics
internal assessment support material

The treatment of errors and uncertainties is directly relevant in the internal
assessment of:
data collection and processing, aspects 1, 2 and 3 (recording physics internal assessment
raw data, processing raw data, and presenting processed data)
conclusion and evaluation, aspects 1 and 2 (concluding, and physics internal assessment
evaluating procedure(s))—a reasonable interpretation, with
justification, may include the appreciation of errors and Assessed student work
uncertainties, and evaluation of procedures may, if relevant, Overview
include the appreciation of errors and uncertainties.
Investigation 1
The core physics syllabus covers errors and uncertainties in the following Investigation 2
section of the Physics guide (2007):
Investigation 3
Measurement and uncertainties (topic 1.2). Investigation 4
Investigation 5
Both standard and higher level students are to be assessed by the same
syllabus content and the same assessment criteria. Investigation 6
Investigation 7
Expectations at standard level and higher Investigation 8
level Investigation 9
All physics students are expected to deal with uncertainties throughout
Investigation 10
their investigations. Students can make statements about the minimum
uncertainty in raw data based on the least significant figure in a
measurement. They can calculate the uncertainty using the range of data © IBO 2007
in a repeated measurement, and they can make statements about the
manufacturer's claim of accuracy. Students can estimate uncertainties in
compound measurements, and can make educated guesses about
uncertainties in the method of measurement. If uncertainties are small
enough to be ignored, the student should note this fact.
Students may express uncertainties as absolute, fractional, or

percentages. They should be able to propagate uncertainties through a
calculation—addition and subtraction, multiplication and division, as well as
squaring and trigonometric functions.
All students are expected to construct, where relevant, uncertainty bars on

graphs. In many cases, only one of the two axes will require such
uncertainty bars. In other cases, uncertainties for both quantities may be
too small to construct uncertainty bars. A brief comment by the student on
why the uncertainty bars are not included is then expected. If there is a
large amount of data, the student need only draw uncertainty bars for the
smallest value datum point, the largest value datum point, and several data
points between these extremes. Uncertainty bars can be expressed as
absolute values or percentages.
Arbitrary or made-up uncertainty bars will not earn the student credit.
Students should be able to use the uncertainty bars to discuss,
qualitatively, whether or not the plot is linear, and whether or not the two
plotted quantities are in direct proportion. In respect of the latter, they
should also be able to recognize if a systematic error is present.
Using the uncertainty bars in a graph, students should be able to find the
minimum and maximum slopes, and then use these to express the overall
uncertainty range in an experiment.
Qualitative and quantitative comments about errors and uncertainties may
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:33
Physics teacher support material http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/IBDocs/IA/files/skills_en.html
Introduction
Introduction
Manipulative skills in physics internal
assessment support material

Manipulative skills are assessed summatively. This means that one overall
mark will be given. The skills assessed should cover most of the two-year
course, and the mark given should reflect the student’s general ability near Errors and uncertainties in
the end of the course. This mark is not an average, nor does it relate to a physics internal assessment
given investigation. It is important, therefore, that the scheme of work sets
the students a variety of tasks and that they carry out a range of different
techniques. The examples below are suggestions to aid assessment of
manipulative skills and are not considered to be a prescribed list. Assessed student work
Overview
Note: No supporting evidence is required for moderation of Investigation 1
manipulative skills.
Investigation 2
Investigation 3
Aspect 1: Following instructions Investigation 4
The student: Investigation 5
reads/listens to instructions before asking for help Investigation 6
only starts the investigation after having read/listened to all the Investigation 7
instructions
Investigation 8
is able to follow a sequence of several written or verbal
Investigation 9
instructions with little assistance.
Investigation 10
Aspect 2: Carrying out techniques © IBO 2007
Measuring length
The student:
chooses an instrument appropriate to the length to be

measured, for example, metre rule, vernier calipers, micrometer
uses the instrument correctly
records the zero reading
reads a scale correctly, for example, vernier.
Cathode-ray oscilloscope (CRO) investigation

Students investigate the operation and use of a CRO.
The student:
uses a CRO competently

learns skills of adjustment and measurement
should explore the various controls
should ask for help only after a good attempt has been made to
use the CRO for the assigned tasks.
Building an electric motor

Students construct a small DC motor from a kit.
Most good educational suppliers sell DC motor kits, complete with

instructions. The student will not be able to construct the motor unless the
i t ti f ll d l l
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:34
Physics teacher support material http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/IBDocs/IA/files/overview_en.html
Introduction
Investigation Title D DCP CE How to use this teacher
support material
1 Investigating the x x x
relationship between the The design criterion in
drop height and the time of physics internal assessment
six bounces of a super-ball Errors and uncertainties in
2 Does the weight of the ball x x x
affect the depth of the
crater formed?
3 Investigating the braking x x x
Overview
distance of a wooden crate
Investigation 1
4 Parachute investigation x x x
Investigation 2
5 Investigating collisions in x x x Investigation 3

one dimension: the
Investigation 4
relationship between mass
and sound Investigation 5
Investigation 6
6 Investigating the change in x x x
acceleration of a trolley Investigation 7
running down an inclined
Investigation 8
plane
Investigation 9
7 The half-life of a bouncing x x x
ball Investigation 10
8 The mass per unit length of x x © IBO 2007

a wire measured by two
different methods
9 Detecting gamma radiation x x

from distances
10 Determining the universal x x

gas constant
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:27
Investigation 1
Investigating the relationship between the drop height and time

of 6 bounces of a super-ball.
INTRODUCTION
D 1 In this laboratory I’m going to relate the time that a ball needs for 6 bounces from different
dropping heights.
My variables are height, time for bounces, mass of ball, bouncing surface and number of
bounces. The independent variable is the dropping height H because I choose it. The dependent
variable is the bouncing time T because this depends on the drop height. The constants must be
the mass of ball, bouncing surface, and number of bounces because they are going to be the same
during the whole experiment.
The question to answer is how the time of six bounces is related to the height of dropping it. I
will look for a linear and proportional relationship between the independent and dependent
variables. My idea is if the height increases, the time will increase. If I don’t find this result I will
graph whatever is needed to find the relationship.
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

Investigation 1
Therefore the function of this graph would be T = mH where T is time, m is the gradient, and H
is the height.
DESIGN
D 2 The method to make this experiment is easy and simple. The equipment and materials that I will
use are: one ball, a stopwatch, a meter stick, the floor surface, a table, and materials to write.
When I have all of this, I will start the measure of the independent variable. I’ll use a paw of a
D 3
table and there I’ll mark lightly different heights with the ruler. I’ll start with 20 and then 30, 40,
50, 60 and I’ll use the height of the table and the ruler too.
D 2 To make the experiment I will put the ruler horizontally to the mark in the table and in the edge
of the rule I will put the ball.
Then I’ll leave the ball fall, therefore now I’m going to explain how I will measure the time
(dependent variable). When the ball is on the ruler I’ll be ready with the watch in my hand. I’ll
leave the ball go from the ruler and I will press the button on the stopwatch at this moment in
order to start timing. I will then watch and listen for the ball to make 6 bounces. At the moment
of the 6th bounce I will stop the stopwatch timing.
Also I should explain how I’m going to keep the constant variable. The surface that I’ll choose
it’ll be the ground of the classroom and the ball will be a showy ball and therefore I will not miss
the ball.

Investigation 1
D 3 Another point to talk about is how many times I’ll measure the variables. I will measure the time
for six bounces 4 times for each different height and then I’ll take the average. To measure the
height I’ll repeat it 3 times and I’ll take the average. I’m going to take 7 different values from 20
cm being the smallest height until 100 cm being the longest height.
DATA AND ANALYSIS
DCP 1 With all of the process done I have to measure and write the values, therefore I make the raw
data table here.
Raw Data
# Drop Height H (cm) Time of 6 Bounces T (s)
Uncertainty ± 0.2 cm Uncertainty ± 0.2 s
1 20.0 19.0 20.0 1.68 1.78 1.79 1.57
2 30.0 30.0 29.5 1.97 2.10 2.34 2.28
3 41.0 40.0 39.0 2.35 2.46 2.75 2.77
4 50.0 50.5 50.5 2.72 2.73 2.72 2.72
5 60.0 60.1 60.6 3.19 3.01 3.09 3.16
6 77.5 77.9 77.2 3.32 3.28 3.59 3.35
7 100 100.3 100.9 4.03 4.00 3.97 4.03
I estimate the uncertainty in the height as about 0.2 cm. The uncertainty in the bouncing time is
harder to figure. Taking the difference between the largest and smallest time for each height I
find the range of uncertainty. This is 0.22 s, 0.37 s, 0.42 s, 0.01 s, 0.18 s, 0.31 s and 0.06 s. The
average of these ranges is 0.22 s, so half the range is 0.11 s or ±0.1 s. But that is too precise
given that five of the ranges are much more than this, so to be safe I say the timing uncertainty is
±0.2 s. This seems reasonable. By the way, I first drew a graph with uncertainty bars at ±0.1 s
and the best straight line did not cross many of the uncertainty ranges, so 0.2 seconds is better.
Now I need to process my data to find averages.

Investigation 1
DCP 2 H1 + H 2 + H 3
For the height, H ave = . This was done on calculator. I decided to keep the
3
uncertainty here as ±0.2 cm or ±0.002 m. I also changed heights from cm to m.
T1 + T2 + T3 + T4
For times, Tave = and this was done on calculator. Averaging should reduce the
4
uncertainty but because of the variation in uncertainty range for the different heights, I decided to
keep the time uncertainty as ± 0.2 s.
I will keep my numbers to three decimal places even though the uncertainty is only one decimal
place because I will round off numbers only at the conclusion.
Processed Data / Averages

Average Height H (m) Average Time
# of 6 Bounces, T (s)
∆H = ± 0.002 m
∆T = ± 0.2 s
1 0.196 1.705 §1.7
2 0.298 2.170 § 2.2
3 0.400 2.580 § 2.6
4 0.503 2.722 § 2.7
5 0.605 3.110 § 3.1
6 0.772 3.380 § 3.2
7 1.004 4.007 § 4.0
Now I construct a graph of time against height. The uncertainty in the height is relatively small
and so I will ignore this, while the uncertainty in the time is more significant and so I will show
error bars for time.

Investigation 1
DCP 3

Investigation 1
DCP 3
The best straight-line gradient mBest = 2.71 , the maximum gradient mMax = 3.43 and the
minimum gradient mMin = 2.35 . The range is:
mMax − mMin = 3.43 − 2.35 = 1.08
Half of this range is the uncertainty in the best straight line.
1.08
∆mBest = ± = ±0.54 ≈ ±0.5
2
The gradient and its uncertainty are thus mBest = 2.71 ± 0.495 ≈ 2.7 ± 0.5
The uncertainty divided by the gradient times 100 gives us an error of about 19%, and that is not
good. The correlation between T and H is suspect.
The general equation y = mx + c for my data is now T = m H + c where the proportionality

constant mBest ≈ 2.7 ± 0.5 and the systematic shift in the line is c, where c = 1.19 s . My research
question said that c = 0 but this is not true. Let us re-examine the data in more detail.
PROBLEMS WITH ANALYSIS
I notice at the y-intercept, for a height of zero, a time of 1.35 s. This is impossible, so the
systematic shift must have some meaning. Perhaps the time from the release to the first bounce
1 2 2H
offsets all the data points. So, using the theoretical time from H = g t drop to t drop = I had
2 g
2H
the graphing program calculate the revised bounce time as t revised = T − where g is gravity
g
at 9.81m s-2 . Here is the graph.

Investigation 1
The y-axis offset is still significant, about 1.19 s compared to the previous graph offset of 1.35 s.
There must be some other theoretical problem.
Looking close at the data points and realizing that the time must be zero for a zero height, I
might suggest a curving trend in the data. Perhaps the true shape of the graph is not a straight
line. Next I try logarithms to find the relationship between time and height. The graphing
software does this for me when I define the terms.

Investigation 1
CE 1 This is great news. There is a high correlation of 0.996 and the gradient is 0.506 or about 0.5.
The gradient is the exponent n and the proportionality constant is now k.
T = kH n → logT = log k + n log H
With logarithms, we can say that n = 0.5 or T ∝ H 0.5 which is T ∝ H or T 2 ∝ H . Here is a

graph of time squared against height.
This is great. The best straight lines nearly goes through the origin with an offset of only
–0.07 s2. We can ignore this experimental error. Also, the correlation is 0.996, slightly better
than other graphs. I think it is safe to say that my data shows that T 2 = mH and not T = mH .
CONCLUSION
In my conclusion I am going to relate what I got and what I was expected to get. My experiment
investigated the relationship between the time that a ball does 6 bounces as a function of
dropping height. As the height increases I expected the time to increase. My graph showed this.
The graph was linear but did not pass through the origin. I suspected some systematic error in the
theory. Although I was more or less correct, I also sense a trend in the graph as the data kind of
curved. I then graphed the log of time against the log of height and found that the graph of time
squared against height was a much better straight line and it went through the origin. Hence my
original idea is wrong and a new discovery was made, namely that time squared is proportional
the drop height.
CE 2 The most important problem here is in the trend of the data as seen as the scatter of data on the
graph. To improve the quality of data and hence to better find the correct trend I would consider
the following things.

Investigation 1
CE 2 I would construct a better ball release mechanism, and not do it by hand. Perhaps a clamp and a
stand, where the clamp when opened would release the ball without any twisting or turning and
the stand would allow repeated drops from exactly the same height.
There is a difficulty in measuring the time of 6 bounces. I could use a computer and data logging
equipment to record the sound as time goes by. The bounces would review spikes in the sound
CE 3
level, and the time scale would be very accurate. This would be a great improvement.
I would like to have a wider range of data, perhaps up to 1.60 meters. I would also want more
data points within this range, say every 10 cm.
Perhaps the bouncing ball could be restrained in a closed box to keep it from moving off to one
side. However, this would also take energy away from the ball and invalidate my data.
There is no known textbook answer on the relationship of time to time of a number of bounces
and the drop height, but my discovery of T 2 ∝ h must be hidden in the theory of free fall motion
and the equations we learned in class. We know (with uniform acceleration) that the impact
speed is proportional to the square root of the drop height, and that the bouncing time should be
proportional to the impact speed.

Physics teacher support material http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/IBDocs/IA/files/investigation01_en.html
Introduction
Investigation 1: Investigating the
relationship between the drop height and support material
the time of six bounces of a super-ball The design criterion in


Criterion D DCP CE Manipulative skills in

Student work Achievement 6 4 4
level
awarded Overview
Investigation 1
Achievement c, p, p, c, p,
of aspects c, c p Investigation 2
c
Investigation 3
Annotated student work
Investigation 4
Investigation 5
Assessment
Investigation 6
Design Investigation 7
Moderator comments Investigation 8
Defining the problem and
selecting variables Investigation 9
Complete Investigation 10
The research question is clear and
the relevant variables are © IBO 2007
identified.
Controlling variables
Complete
Although the method of starting
and stopping the stopwatch is not
quite clear, the student does his
best (fourth paragraph under
“Design” heading) to address this
issue, and so with the benefit of
doubt this aspect earns a
complete.
Developing a method for the

collection of data
Complete
The method is nicely thought out.
Data collection and

processing
Recording raw data
Partial
There are three measures for three
trials of drop height and yet there
are four measures of bouncing
time. This is acceptable because
of the odd way the student
measures height. There is an
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 19:13
Investigation 2
D 1 Does the weight of the ball affect the depth of the crater formed?
VARIABLES
I dropped balls onto some sand to make craters. The height at which the different balls
were dropped at was the independent variable, where the depth of the crater was the dependent
variable.
D 2 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

The height at which the ball was dropped from was kept the same, but the weight of each
D 3
ball was changed. This was to show how the weight of the ball can affect the depth of the crater
which it created. The height that the ball was dropped was 20 cm, and the original depth of the
sand of 2 cm.
I used 5 different sized balls, a scale, a meter ruler, and sand in a tray. Firstly, the
apparatus is to be assembled. When this was done I then began to weigh the different balls on a
scale to find their different weights. I will choose the heaviest ball and drop it first. When the ball
is dropped into the sand I then will measure the depth of the hole or crater that is made. The
depth will be affected by the weight but also the amount of gravity acting on it, for example this
is commonly shown on the moon when asteroids hit it and create large craters. Also I chose to
use sand rather than then another type of material to drop the balls on as it was easier to measure
the depth of each crater. After the depth of the crater has been measured with the largest ball, I
will repeat this method three more times with the same ball to get an average. Each ball will
follow the same method and each result will be put into a results table shown below.
DCP 1 Results Table

Weight / g Depth / cm
115 1.5
46 0.8
17 0.7
7 0.4
5 0.6
And then you can see the data from the results table presented on the graph below.

Investigation 2
DCP 3
DCP 2
CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION

By looking at the results shown in the graph is it seen that as the weight of the ball
CE 1
decreases so does the depth of the crater formed. The smallest ball weighed 5 g and had an
anonymous [sic.] result when looking at the depth it made. This is seen as instead of following
the trend of the weight and depth decreasing together, the weight decreased but the depth then
increased. This may have been due to many problems of the experiment, for example to the
CE 2
depth of the sand at this time may have not been as deep; the ball may have also dropped in a
previous crater formed by the last ball dropped, where the sand was not smoothed out. Other then
this result the experiment was successful in showing a correlation between the results and a
similar trend throughout. This was expected as it would follow the rules of gravity, and such like
on the moon the greater the asteroid the bigger the crater left in the moon. So it was expected that
the experiment would work as planned out to with all independent variables staying the same.

Investigation 2
IMPROVEMENTS
Though the experiment was quite successful, I believe that it could be improved. If the
experiment was to be altered the question being asked may be changed to see if the height at
which the ball is dropped affects the depth of the crater, as this too would imitate a real asteroid
CE 3
hitting the moon. Also, improving the techniques to measure the depth in the sane was difficult,
by using heavier objects to drop into it making the crater may have made it easier. Or a smaller
more accurate ruler could have been used to do the measurements of the depth. When dropping
the ball from 20 cm it was difficult to set the ball at the same point each time, though mainly
accurate, it could have been measured with a pin or small stick to be more sufficient. Finally,
when the ball was dropped into the sane, covering the crater for the next drop was hard as it had
to make the same depth of sand as before at 2 cm. This I found was not always sufficient, nor
easy for measure the depth of the sand with a larger ruler. In another experiment a smaller ruler
again would be used.

Introduction
Investigation 2: Does the weight of the
ball affect the depth of the crater formed? support material


Criterion D DCP CE physics internal assessment
Student work Achievement 3 2 1 Manipulative skills in

level
awarded Assessed student work
Overview
Achievement p, p, n, n,
of aspects p, p n, p Investigation 1
p
Annotated student work Investigation 2
Investigation 3
Investigation 4
Assessment
Investigation 5
Partial Investigation 9
The research question is vague Investigation 10
and the variables do not tie in with
the research question. More
thought on the controlled variable © IBO 2007
of sand depth is needed.
Partial
Balls of different mass might have
different sizes. This variable needs
explicit attention. A metre rule may
not be the most appropriate ruler to
measure a crater depth, and this
choice is a major error.

collection of data
Partial
How does the student measure the
depth, and is the depth from the
sand surface or from the newly
created ring of sand around the
crater? These issues need
attention.
Data collection and

processing
Recording raw data
Partial
There is no raw data for the crater
depth, only the averages of three
trials for each ball. There is only
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 19:29
Investigation 3
Investigating the braking distance of a wooden crate.
In this experiment I looked at the braking distance of a wooden crate. The purpose of the
experiment was to determine whether there was a relationship between the breaking distance of
the crate and its initial velocity. I came to the conclusion that the breaking distance was
proportional to the velocity squared.
D 1 My research question is to investigate the relationship between the velocity and the braking
distance of a crate.
1 2
Because kinetic energy becomes heat energy when braking, I can write mv0 = Fd or simply
2
that the distance is proportional to the square of the speed, d ∝ v02 .

Investigation 3
D 1 The dependent variable is the braking distance while the independent variable is the initial
velocity. The fixed variables are the frictional forces of the table surface and the mass of the
crate.
D 3
I used a track, crate with a flag, photocells, electronic clock, and rulers. My method used two D 2
photocells and the electronic clock to find the time the crate uses to pass between two points with
∆d
the flag distance ∆d . I use this to calculate the initial velocity using the formulae v0 = . The
∆t
initial velocity is v0 for the experiment. We use the two rulers to find the distance the crate has
traveled. I used a rubber band to give the crate an initial velocity, and tried the best I could to
control the initial velocity.
My data are as follows.
DCP 1 Trial ∆t Braking Distance

±0,0005 s ±0,04 m
1 0,0186 0,90
2 0,0241 0,47
3 0,2193 0,56
4 0,0315 0,29
5 0, 0228 0,53
6 0,0184 0,77
The flag ∆d = 3, 4 cm .
DCP 2 Calculating the initial velocity of the crate I used distance of flag divided by time the flag takes
0.90 m
to pass the photocells. For example: v = = 1.89 m / s .
0.0186 s

Investigation 3
DCP 2 ∆s
v0 = v2
∆t
± 0, 4 m / s
± 0, 4 m / s
1,89 3,57
1,45 2,10
1,60 2,56
1,1 1,23
1,54 2,37
1,90 3,61
DCP 3
CE 1 Plotted on the graph above is the time vs. velocity squared. As evident from the graph, the
derivative function of distance vs. time will be a straight line, and so the breaking distance is
proportional to the velocity squared. My expectation was true. We had trouble controlling the
CE 2 launch speed, so that is one problem. Often the crate would move off at an angle. To fix this we
CE 3 would make sure it always moves straight along the track. I enjoyed this experiment and I was
successful in proving my idea.

Introduction
Investigation 3: Investigating the braking
distance of a wooden crate support material



level
Overview
Achievement c, c, p, p,
of aspects p, p p, n Investigation 1
p
Investigation 3
Investigation 4
Assessment
Investigation 5
Although friction might vary with Investigation 10
speed, this is not significant here.
The research question and the
variables are clear and well © IBO 2007
defined.
Partial
Between which points is the
distance travelled measured? More
detail is required. There is an
attempt at measuring the
independent variable (although not
too clearly expressed) and there is
only a passing reference to the use
of a rubber band to give the crate
an initial speed. There is some
attempt, although only minimal, at
describing the method and so this
aspect earns a partial.

collection of data
Partial
There is insufficient detail here.
The student should have repeated
measurements but there is no
method of repeating initial speed.
Data collection and

processing
Recording raw data
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 19:27
Investigation 4
PARACHUTE INVESTIGATION
Research Question.
D 1 My research question is “How does the mass of a parachute affect the amount of time it takes to
fall?” I believe that there should be some sort of inverse relationship here—that as the mass
increases the fall time gets smaller.
The independent variable is the mass of the parachute, and the dependent variable is the amount
of time to descend. Constant variables include the surface areas of the canopy of the parachute;
the distance dropped the lengthy of the strings connecting the canopy to the base of the
parachute, and the material of the parachute.
Materials and Method.
D 3 The materials I used are a plastic cup, string, garbage bag, masses of 10 g each, and a stopwatch. D 2
My procedure was as follows.

1. A 50 by 50 cm square was cut out of the garbage bag and the corners were tied to the strings.
Then the free ends of the strings were tied to the plastic cup
2. 10 grams was placed inside the cup and the cup was released, from a constant height as the
stopwatch started timing. When the parachute hit the ground, the stopwatch was stopped. The
time was recorded.
3. Step 2 was repeated twice to minimize potential sources of error.
4. Steps 2 and 3 were then repeated for masses of 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 grams.

Investigation 4
Figure Sketch of Setup
DCP 1 Data.
Mass of the parachute Time to fall to the ground

m/g t/s
±∆m = ±0.5g ±∆t = ±0.05s
10 3.4
20 2.6
30 2.4
40 2.1
50 2.0
60 1.9
DCP 3 Analysis.

Investigation 4
Sure enough, there is an inverse relationship here: as the mass increases the time decreases.
DCP 2 The computer’s best curve fit tells me that Time = Constant × Mass −0.3279 or t ∝ m −0.33 which is
the same as t −3 ∝ m . Hence I now graph 1 t 3 against m .
DCP 3
Conclusion.
CE 1 From the results it is apparent that a correlation exists between the mass of the parachute and the
time required to fall to the ground. It is not linear but rather parabolic, to the power three. I found
that the reciprocal of time cubed is proportional to the mass.
CE 2 One limitation of the experiment occurred when the parachute fell. Because it never fell straight
down towards the ground, the distance traveled was never constant. This means that the
apparently controlled variable of height was in not perfectly controlled. This would produce the
results that are not entirely accurate but merely relativity close.
Another limitation is the timing system. Because the person timing is not perfectly accurate
when pressing the button to stop and start, the time will vary even if the actual time for the fall
remains the same.
CE 3 To improve the experiment it could be done in an area with no wind so that the parachute falls
straight to the ground without being blown off course. This would allow the distance fallen to
remain constant and produce accurate results. Secondly, multiple timers could be used for each
drop and the average could be taken so that any times that do not concur could be eliminated. I
would need help doing this.

Introduction
Investigation 4: Parachute investigation
support material

Criterion D DCP CE
Student work Achievement 5 3 4 physics internal assessment
level Manipulative skills in
awarded physics internal assessment
Achievement c, p, p, c, p, Assessed student work

of aspects p, p p Overview
c
Investigation 2
Investigation 3
Assessment
Investigation 4
The research question and
Investigation 9
relevant variables are clearly
stated. Investigation 10
Controlling variables © IBO 2007

Partial
How is the height to be kept
constant? This needs to be
addressed. It is assumed that the
masses are calibrated so no scale
is required. However, the total
mass of the parachute system has
not been addressed. This is a
rather simple investigation and so
it is important that all the details be
recognized.

collection of data
Complete
The student mentions repeated
trials in step 3 of the method. A
larger range of masses would have
been appropriate. This brief but
adequate method earns a
complete.
Data collection and

processing
Recording raw data
Partial
The mass column says it is the
mass of the parachute when the
t d t ll it i th
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 21:46
Investigation 5
D 1 Investigating Collisions in One Dimension:

The Relationship between Mass and Sound
Research
The aim of the experiment is to investigate the relationship between mass and sound produced in
a one-dimensional collision between a wooden trolley and a wooden surface. This will be done
D 2
by changing the mass of a trolley, and then recording the collision sound by using a microphone
and an oscilloscope.
The trolley will always roll down a runway the same distance and from the same initial height,
hence it should collide with the same speed each time. The theory of kinetic energy says that
kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the speed (which should be a constant) and
proportional to the mass. Hence as the mass increases kinetic energy increase. All the kinetic
energy is lost in the collision, mostly due to heat but also to sound. Assuming that the percentage
of energy changed into sound is the same for all collisions, then I predict that as the mass
increases so the sound will increase. This is a directly proportional and linear relationship. The
ideal graph is sketched below.

Investigation 5
D 1 Variables
• The independent variable is the mass of the trolley

• The dependent variable is the sound intensity measured in arbitrary units (squares on the
cathode ray oscilloscope)
• The controlled variables include the acceleration of gravity, the height of the inclination
of the ramp, the trolley and microphone positions, surface of impact.
D 2 Apparatus
• Trolley
• Wooden ramp
• Wooden block
• Ruler
• Nine 10 gram (0.010 kg) masses
• Microphone to record the sound
• Oscilloscope to show the peaks of the sound
• Wires
• Camera to record the peaks of sound
• Tripod to hold the camera

Investigation 5
Diagram of Experiment

Investigation 5
D 2 A camera was put in front of the oscilloscope to record the highest peak registered with the
microphone.
Method
• Set the apparatus as shown in the diagram.

• Set a height of 30.0 cm for the ramp, and keep it constant for the whole experiment.
• Set the distance of the microphone to 5.0 cm from the point of collision and keep it
constant for the whole experiment.
• Start recording wit the camera.
• Record the sound of the first collision without additional masses
D 3 • Add 10 grams and record another collision.
• Do this process until 90 g are reached.
• Repeat the process until three consistent results appear to reduce errors, and then an
average of the result is taken.
This is a screenshot of what the camera recorded and it can be seen where the highest sound peak
is.
Each square on the screen of the CRO is one unit.
The mass M is the mass added to the trolley, and so does not include the trolley itself.

Investigation 5
DCP 1 Data Sound S / arbitrary units DCP 2

±0.5 units
Mass M / kg 1st trial 2nd trail 3rd trial Average Sound
±0.001 kg S1 S2 S3 Save / units
±0.5 units
0.000 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.7
0.010 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.8
0.020 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.8
0.030 2.0 2.5 1.5 2.0
0.040 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.7
0.050 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.2
0.060 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
0.070 3.5 4.0 3.5 3.4
0.080 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.7
0.090 4.5 5.5 5.0 5.0
DCP 2 S1 + S2 + S3 1.0 + 1.0 + 0.5

The average of three sound measures is, e.g., Save = = ≈ 0.8
3 3
Mass Uncertainty
The mass of the trolley is not relevant here, so we can ignore its uncertainty. The uncertainty in
the added masses is ±0.001 kg. This is determined by the significant figures given on the mass
set.
Sound Uncertainty
Because I read the sound units from a video of the CRO it is not easy to determine the
uncertainty because the green line is faint and thin, so I will say that at its worst, the uncertainty
in sound level is ±0.5 units. This is carried through to the average of the sound.
Graph of Data
My data for drawing a graph is then adjusted so that it can pass through the origin. To do this I
substract the sound level for zero mass, which on average of 0.5 units; this means that the mass
of the trolley is substracted from the total, such that the sound level due to added masses is now
equal to Smass = Smass+trolley − Strolley = Smass − 0.67 units ≈ Smass − 0.8 units .

Investigation 5
DCP 2 Data For Graphing

Mass M / kg Average Sound Due
±0.001 kg to Added Mass
Save (added mass) / units
±0.5 units
0.000 0
0.010 0.2
0.020 1.2
0.030 1.3
0.040 2.0
0.050 2.5
0.060 2.8
0.070 2.7
0.080 4.0
0.090 4.3
DCP 3
The gradient of the graph is 47.44 units per kilogram. The graph is linear and proportional and
all the data points lie on the best straight line (as constructed by the computer).

Investigation 5
Next, I calculate the uncertainty in the graphing results.
DCP 3
DCP 2 The maximum gradient is 58.89 and the minimum gradient is 36.67. Again, the best-straight line
gradient is 47.44.
The uncertainty above the best straight line is 58.89 – 47.44 = + 11.45.
The uncertainty below the best straight line is 36.67 – 47.44 = – 10.77.
The gradient and its uncertainty are thus 44.77 (+11.45)/(–10.77) or about 45 ± 11 to 2 SD.
CE 1 Conclusion
The gradient and its uncertainty means that the sound increases as the mass increases by a
proportionality factor of about 45 units of sound per kilogram of mass, with an uncertainty of
±11 units of sound per kilogram.
As shown by my graph, there is a linear and proportional relationship between mass and sound
produced in a collision, and by original research question has been answered with a reasonable
degree of certainty. The original suggestion about sound and kinetic energy seems to justify my
results.

Investigation 5
Evaluation
CE 2 Even though the relationship is linear, it can be seen that the errors involved are significant. The
gradient varies by about 24%, which is high. The error is mostly due to the precision that the
peak sound is recorded. In fact, the peak sound registered in the oscilloscope was recorded with a
camera, and it was very hard to see what was recorded in the fraction of second where the sound
was at its highest value. The green line was light and thin at the peak.
Other errors occurred because the trolley did not go straight but tended to go to the left or right,
meaning that the collision occurred at an angle and not perpendicularly. Other smaller errors
were given by external sounds.
Improvements
CE 3 One improvement to make would be to use an oscilloscope that would record the highest peak as
an actual value and show it. Perhaps a computer based CRO where data is sorted and where
measurements are a high degree of precision. The CRO used for this experiment was very
imprecise.
Another improvement would be to use a ramp that would be as wide as the trolley so that it will
only go straight and not either left or right. However there will be another problem with this,
which is that more friction will be present between the sides of the ramp and the trolley, but it
does not matter because it will be the same throughout the experiment. Finally, other errors could
be avoided by doing the experiment in an isolated room without external sounds affecting the
entire experiment; otherwise a less sensitive microphone could be used.

Introduction
Investigation 5: Investigating collisions in
one dimension: the relationship between support material
mass and sound The design criterion in



level
awarded Overview
Investigation 1
Achievement c, c, c, c c, c,
of aspects c, c Investigation 2
c
Investigation 3
Investigation 4
Investigation 5
Assessment
Investigation 6
There is a reasonable research
question and the variables, © IBO 2007
including assumptions, are clearly
identified.
Complete
There is no appreciation of the
sound loudness. Does doubling
the CRO deflection mean twice the
sound level? The units could have
been cm or volts. The mass of the
trolley is not used as part of the
raw data hence the student does
not need to list a balance or scale
to measure the trolley mass. Still,
this aspect is nicely addressed.

collection of data
Complete
The method is appropriate and
adequate.
Data collection and

processing
Recording raw data
Complete
The raw data is clearly and
correctly presented, including
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 21:48
Investigation 6
Investigating the Change in Acceleration of a Trolley

Running Down an Inclined Plane
The Investigation
D 1 Research Question: Is the acceleration of a trolley down an inclined plane constant?
The time the trolley travels is the independent variable while the distance it moves is the
dependent variable. The controlled variables are the equipment settings, the physical set up of
the runway and trolley (initial height, release method, etc.), and the room temperature. Times and
distances are measured by an ultrasonic motion detector and computer software. The distance is
determined from echo time and the speed of sound.
1 2
Uniform acceleration is related to distance s and time t by the equation s = at .
2
a
A graph of distance against time squared will be a straight line with gradient equal to .
2
Equipment
D 2 The interface unit was a LabPro connected to a Motion

Detector 2 (Model MD-BTD), both by Vernier. See the
photo on the right. The software was Vernier’s Logger
Pro version 3.4.1. The runway is a standard lab
aluminum one-meter ramp, and the trolley is a PASCO
low-friction trolley (with ball bearing wheels). I set the
runway up on a brick of about 10 cm height. Tape was
used to secure the ramp.
Uncertainties: Issues of Resolution, Precision and Accuracy
DCP 2 Calibration. The accuracy (a value compared to a known standard) of the Motion Detector
depends upon the room temperature. Because the Motion Detector uses the speed of sound to
determine distance, and the speed of sound depends on the air temperature, then the temperature
of the air during the experiment must be measured. The motion detector can easily be calibrated
to the room temperature.
The room temperature at the time of the experiment

was 22.4°C. This is used to calibrate the Sonic unit.
Timing Accuracy. In the Vernier unit the timing

rate is 1.00 MHz for a period of ∆t = 10 −6 s . Uncertainties in timing can be ignored. The speed of
sound in air at 22.4°C is 342 m s-1 . In 10 −6 s , sound will therefore travel 3.42 × 10 −4 m . In fact,
the distance is half this amount because the sound wave is reflected back to the detector therefore

Investigation 6
DCP 2 the resolution (the minimum detectable change) is about 0.1 mm. Vernier claims a resolution of
1 mm.
Precision of Measurements. I will use the scatter of measurements to determine the uncertainty
in the sonic unit. The sample graph below show the range of values for a stationary target close
to the sonic unit.
The first and second decimal places of positions are all identical. Only by the third decimal place
do we detect some variation. The maximum value is 0.176821 m and the minimum is 0.16766 m,
with the median value of 0.16793 m. The range is 0.00055 m and half the range is 0.000272 m or
about ±0.0003 m. This is a precision of ±0.3 mm. The stationary target is thus measured to be
(0.1679 ± 0.0003) m or the uncertainty is ±0.3 mm.
With the stationary target placed at the end of the runway, the following data is recorded.
Here the maximum is 0.965614 m, the minimum is 0.965065 m, and the median is 0.965339 m.
The range is 0.000549 m and half the range is 0.00027 m, or an uncertainty of ±0.0003 m. Again,
it is about ±0.3 mm.
Therefore, for both the near and far targets, the precision (or self-repeatability) of the ultrasonic
range system is established as ±0.3 mm, or ±0.0003 m.
Speed and Acceleration. Since speed is calculated from changes in consecutive relative
positions, speed values do not need calibration; only the distance uncertainty needs to be
propagated.
Systematic Uncertainty. There is another source of measurement error. In the time interval for
the ultrasonic pulse to reflect off the trolley and travel back to the sensor unit, the trolley will
have moved slightly forward. The uncertainty here is not constant but should increase in a linear
way as the distance increases. This factor of uncertainty may be ignored since the motion of the

Investigation 6
DCP 2 trolley is relatively slow and the overall range is small. Moreover, systematic shifts in speeds
against times will not matter when calculating acceleration from the gradient of a graph.
Overall Uncertainty. The uncertainty in the longest distance moved by the trolley is ±0.3mm.
The systematic shift in measuring technique may be ±0.1mm or more, and the calibration for the
speed of sound may be ±0.1mm or more. Overall, looking at the worst possible case, a general
uncertainty of ±0.7 mm to ±1 mm in all distance measurements would be acceptable. Hence,
Vernier’s stated uncertainty of ±1 mm can be accepted. . Over a distance of 0.5m, the uncertainty
is therefore ±0.2%. The timing uncertainty in an interval, say of 2s, is only 0.00005%. Hence
timing uncertainty may be ignored.
Setting Up the Detection Unit and Software Settings
D 3 After trialing different sample rates, it was found that a frequency of 20 Hz (for a period of 0.05
s) worked well. A sample time of 5 seconds was also selected. The Data Collecting box (as
shown here) was adjusted to these values.

Investigation 6
Data
The data-logging process recorded the raw data of time and position. Here is a sample of the data
as collected by the data logging.
DCP 1 DCP 2 DCP 2
Data table headings would ideally be as show below.
DCP 1 Time Distance Time Squared DCP 2

t/s s/m t2 / s2
∆t ≈ ±0 s ∆s = ±0.0003m ∆t 2 ≈ ±0 s 2
DCP 2 Squaring is a simple data processing function, where, for example, using the 4th data information,
t 2 = t × t = 0.20s × 0.20s = 0.04s 2 .

Investigation 6
Data Analysis
Below is a graph of position against time squared with uncertainty bars. The error here is
negliegble. The uncertainty bars look funny because they are so small, the hat and the trail
overlap given the distance scale.
Here is an enlargement of a section of the graph with uncertainty bars at ±1 mm. The uncertainty
bars are insignificant. This is little point in trying to construct maximum and minimum gradients.
Here is the main graph.

Investigation 6
DCP 3
The Tangent Tool was used to find the gradient at various data points. An example of a range
where the acceleration is not uniform and where it is uniform, are shown below.
Changing acceleration region. Uniform acceleration region.
The graph below is used to calculate the gradient of a linear region of the graph. The straight line
is interpolated to highlight the region of non-uniform acceleration.

Investigation 6
DCP 3
Using the above graph, the uniform acceleration a (for the selected data) is given by
a = 2 × gradient = 2 × 0.2184m s-2 = 0.4368m s-2 .
As described above, the uncertainty in the gradient is 0.2%, so the uncertainty in the acceleration
is 0.4%.
a = 0.4368m s −2 ± 0.4% → a = (0.4368 ± 0.0017 )m s −2 ≈ (0.437 ± 0.002 )m s −2
The experiment was repeated several times under identical conditions. The following table
summarizes the results.

Investigation 6
DCP 3 2 x Gradient of Distance

Trial
against Time Squared / m s−2
1 (shown above) 2 x 0.2184 = 0.4368
2 (not shown) 2 x 0.1932 = 0.3862
3 (not shown) 2 x 0.2148 = 0.4296
4 (not shown) 2 x 0.1677 = 0.3354
5 (not shown) 2 x 0.2120 = 0.4240
Average 0.4024
Range =
(0.4368 − 0.3354 )m s−2 = ±0.0507m s −2 ≈ ±0.05m s −2
2
aaverage = (0.40 ± 0.05 )m s −2 = 0.40m s −2 ± 13%
Conclusion and Evaluation
CE 1 Uniform Acceleration. The calculated uniform acceleration based on one trial would seem to be
very precise, viz, a ≈ (0.437 ± 0.002 )m s −2 .
Repetition however, reveals a much less precise result. The values are scattered and the result
calculated from a range of these five trials is only accurate to two significant figures.
aaverage = (0.40 ± 0.05 )m s −2
The quality of the measurements is reduced by the scatter of gradient values in the multiple
trials. Therefore the uncertainty of 13% should be accepted.
Changing Acceleration. Analysis of the distance against time-squared graph shows uniform
acceleration in the range from about 1.56 s 2 to 3.61s 2 . After 3.61s 2 (or about 1.9s) the trolley
collides with the end of the runway.
The acceleration is non-uniform in the range from start to about 1s. This could be because the
frictional force acting on the trolley is varying in this range and then becomes constant.
CE 2 Weakness and Improvements. There are two weaknesses in this investigation. First, the
variation in trials suggests that there are factors that need to be better controlled. Perhaps the
CE 3
release mechanism could be improved. An electromagnet could be used to hold the trolley in
place and then gently release it.
CE 2 Second, instead of a 10 cm height, a height of 20 or 30 cm for the given 1.2 meter long runway
CE 3
could be used. Alternatively, the same height could be used but with a much longer runway,
perhaps 2.5 meters long. Having a greater acceleration and/or increasing the range over which
measurements are taken would help reduce the effect that small variation in the movement of the
trolley might have on the results.

Investigation 6
CE 3 Finally, it would be interesting to investigate the region of non-uniform acceleration in more

depth.

Introduction
Investigation 6: Investigating the change
in acceleration of a trolley running down support material
an inclined plane The design criterion in



level
awarded Overview
Investigation 1
Achievement c, c, c, c c, p,
of aspects c, p Investigation 2
c
Investigation 3
Investigation 4
Investigation 5
Assessment
Investigation 6
The research question is clear but
what the student really wants is © IBO 2007
acceleration (dependent variable)
as a function of speed
(independent variable). Perhaps a
graph of acceleration against
speed would have been better,
and this could have been done
with the data-logging equipment
and software. Distance and time
are relevant, however, so this
aspect earns a complete.
Complete
There is not much to controlling
the independent variable but for
the given investigation the student
is planning an appropriate
approach.

collection of data
Complete
The use of appropriate data
logging and of relevant graphs
earns the student a complete.
Data collection and

processing
Recording raw data
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:03
Investigation 7
The Half-Life of a Bouncing Ball
INTRODUCTION
This investigation asks the question of whether the height of a bouncing ball displays exponential
decay and, if so, what is the half-life of the height?
D 2
The independent variable is the bounce number. The ‘life’ of a bouncing ball is measured as
D 1
the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. bounce number. This is a counting number, a pure number with no units and
no uncertainties.
D 1 The dependent variable is the rebound height, H, the height reached between bounces. To
measure H, the time ∆T between consecutive bounces is measured and H calculated from
1 2 1 1
H= gt where t = ∆T . The comes from the face that ∆T is the time up to the rebound
2 2 2
height plus the time down from the rebound height. It is far more accurate to measure the time
interval, and then calculate the height, than it would be to try to measure the rebound height of a
moving bouncing ball. There is no significant uncertainty in the calculated height as it is based
on a very precise timing mechanism with the computer and interface.
D 1 The controlled variables include using the same surface and the same ball. The initial drop
height is not relevant because the first bounce height is calculated by the time interval between
the first impact and the second impact. If the ball moves off the vertical while bouncing, then the
data is rejected. Hence a controlled variable is that the bouncing stays more or less along the
vertical.
D 3
GATHERING DATA
The time ∆T is determined by recording the impact sound of a bouncing ball. Time intervals are
read off a graph of sound pressure against time. A number of trials were made and it was found
that a ping-pong ball made the cleanest (least noise) sound for the computer to record. A number

Investigation 7
D 3 of trials from various initial drop heights were made, and it was found that the best drop height
was about 60 cm.
The microphone was connected to the Vernier Lab Pro interface and then this was connected to
the computer. The Vernier LoggerPro 3.4.1 software automatically sensed the microphone and
displayed graph axes of sound level against time. The settings were pre-set.
Figure 1 shows a sample of the raw data of sound intensity (in arbitrary units) and time
measurements (in seconds).
DCP 1 Figure 1: Raw Data: Sound Pressure (units) and Time (s)
This data is then automatically graphed.

Investigation 7
DCP 1
Figure 2: Graph of Sound Pressure (units) against Time (s)
DCP 2 The computer calculates the consecutive times for the first peaks of each bounce and uses this to
calculate the rebound height H and the natural logarithms of the height H. A value of
g = 9.81m s-2 is used but as this is a constant through out the experiment, it could have been
normalized, i.e. g = 1 .
See the data table below, Figure 3, and details of sample calculations.

Investigation 7
DCP 2 Figure 3: Processed Data
Delta Time Calculation:
Delta Time = Total Time N +1 − Total Time N → ∆TN to N+1 = TN+1 − TN
For example, the interval from N = 3 to N = 4:
∆T3→ 4 = 1.303s − 1.061s = 0.242s
Rebound Height Calculation:
1 2 1 § ∆T ·
Rebound Height = H = gt = g ¨
2
=
g∆T 2
=
(
9.81m s-2 ∆T 2 )
= 1.22625 × ∆T 2
2 2 © 2 ¹̧ 8 8
For example, H for interval N = 3 → N = 4 :
H = 1.22625 (∆T3→ 4 ) = 1.22625 (0.242s ) = 0.071814m ≈ 0.072m

2 2

Investigation 7
Natural Logarithm of Height Calculation:
ln h3→ 4 = ln(0.071814) ≈ −2.477
ANALYSIS OF DATA
H is graphed against total time (see Figure 4). Error bars have not been added since, as described
above, the uncertainty in the calculation of H is insignificant.
Figure 4.
Clearly this is not an exponential decay as the time it takes consecutive values of H to deduce 0.5
H, is not constant. To find a relationship between H and T, a graph of the natural logarithm of H
against total time is plotted.

Investigation 7
Figure 5.
The graph shows that there is not a power relation between H and T. It was at this stage that it
was appreciated that the wrong research question was being asked. Since time intervals between
bounces are not the same, the research question should be “Does the height H of consecutive
number of bounces made by the ball decay exponentially with bounce number?” Hence a graph
of H against bounce number is plotted and shown below.

Investigation 7
DCP 3 Figure 6.
H reduces from 0.10 m to 0.05 m in about 5 bounces (4.9) and then from 0.05 to 0.025 in a
further 5 bounces, thus indicating an “exponential decay”.
Assume that H = H 0 e− λ n where λ is the decay constant and n is the bounce number so that a
plot of the natural logarithm of H against n should give a straight line graph the gradient of
which is = λ . This graph is plotted below.

Investigation 7
DCP 3 Figure 7.
HALF-LIFE ANALYSIS
CE 1 The gradient of the graph is calculated by the computer as m = λ = −0.143 . The “half-life” is
ln 2
calculated from t 1 = = 4.85 bounces . This ties in with the plot of H against bounce number
2 λ
(see above).
CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION
Results: The results show that, for this particular ball and surface, the height of consecutive bounces decays
exponentially with the number of bounces. However, one has to remember that the decrease in height is a set
function. As such, the decay would only be true if there were a very large number of bounces and after each bounce
there was a very small decrease in height.
CE 2 Limitations: The only limitation in this experiment is that there was insufficient time to take
CE 3 more data. More data would have helped to test the validity and or limitations of the exponential
rule in this situation but also to test its validity for balls of different material dropped into
different surfaces.

Investigation 7
CE 3 Improvements: The ball could have been dropped from a greater height to increase the number of data points and
dropped from a smaller height to decrease the number of data points. This could have been repeated for different
balls dropped on the different surfaces from different heights.

Introduction
Investigation 7: The half-life of a bouncing
ball support material



level
Overview
Achievement c, c, c, c c, c,
of aspects c, c Investigation 1
c
Investigation 3
Investigation 4
Assessment
Investigation 5
This is an original and interesting Investigation 10
response to the teacher prompt. It
is clear and well thought out.
© IBO 2007
Complete
The bouncing ball controls the
variables but the student clearly
identifies what they are looking for.
The student did reject non-vertical
bounce trials. With the benefit of
doubt the student earns a
complete.

collection of data
Complete
The student is thoughtful and tries
different balls and different heights
to find the best situation.
Data collection and

processing
Recording raw data
Complete
There is no attempt at evaluating
error and uncertainties in the data
collection process other than
acknowledging that the timing is
very precise. Because data logging
is used to enhance data collection
and processing in an investigation
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:25
Investigation 8
The mass per unit length of a wire measured

by two different methods.
The aim of this experiment is to compare the experimental values from two different methods of
m
determining the value the mass (m) per unit length (L) of a wire, where µ = .
L
DCP 1 The first method determines a value by direct measures of mass and length. In this case, I
measured the mass of the wire as m ± ∆m = (0.0026 ± 0.0005 )kg with a top pan balance and the
length of the wire as L ± ∆L = (1.710 ± 0.002 )m with a metre rule.
DCP 2 m 0.0026 kg
The first method yields a value of µOne = = = 1.52 × 10 −3 kg m −1 . The uncertainty in
L 1.710 m
this is about ∆µOne = ± 0.3 × 10 −3 kg m −1 .
The second method is based on the variation of the speed v of a wave in the wire with the
tension T in the wire. The equipment is set up as shown in the sketch.

Investigation 8
For a given load, the length of the wire is adjusted until it vibrates in its fundamental modes (first
harmonic). Theory tells us that the frequency f, length L, the speed v, and mass per unit length µ
are related as follows:
T
v µ T
f = = = 2L f T = 2 µ f L T = 4µ f 2L 2
2L 2L µ
The slope of a graph of tension T against length squared L2 is 4 µ f 2 for the first harmonic.
slope
Hence µ Two =
4f2
The raw data collect from the experiment is listed here.
DCP 1 1st Harmonic

Load (kg) ±0.001 kg L (m) ±0.02m
1.000 0.42
1.500 0.58
2.000 0.61
2.500 0.70
3.000 0.79
By using the above formulas I calculated the following information based on the raw data.
DCP 2 Tension (N) ±0.01N L2 ±0.05m

9.8 0.18
14.7 0.34
19.6 0.37
24.5 0.49
29.4 0.62

Investigation 8
DCP 3
Graph of Tension against the Square of the Length for the First harmonic.
CE 1 slope
The slope here is given as 46.13N m −2 . Hence µ Two = = 1.2 × 10 −3 kg m −1 .
4f2
My conclusion is tabulated in the table shown here.
Method One µOne (1.5 ± 0.3) × 10 −3 kg m −1

Method Two µ Two 1.2 × 10 −3 kg m −1
As we can see the values of µ for both methods are nearly the same if uncertainties are taken
into account.
CE 2 As we can see from the graph, the trend line matches the point with a few errors. A cause of error
in this investigation is that it is hard to judge the exact value of the length that corresponds to the
resonance. Also, the wire used might not be uniform, causing error to the data collected.
CE 3 Some ways to improve the experiment are to take more measurements and take different length
sample from the same type of wire. By doing that the experimental data should reduce errors.

Introduction
Investigation 8: The mass per unit length
of a wire measured by two different support material
methods The design criterion in



Student work Achievement 3 1
level
awarded Overview
Investigation 1
Achievement p, p, p,
of aspects p n, n Investigation 2
Investigation 3
Investigation 4
Assessment Investigation 5
Investigation 6
Data collection and
Investigation 7
processing
Recording raw data
Investigation 9
Partial
Investigation 10
The mass and length data are
recorded with uncertainties. The
raw data of load and harmonic © IBO 2007
lengths have the correct units and
reasonable uncertainties. It would
have helped to include some
discussion of errors and
uncertainties instead of just listing
them. Unfortunately, there is no
record of the frequency, and
frequency is essential in the
calculation. Therefore this aspect
cannot earn full marks. To earn a
complete the two frequencies with
their uncertainties need to be
recorded. Also, a brief discussion
of errors and uncertainties would
have been relevant.
Processing raw data

Partial
The calculations seem correct but
there are a number of
inconsistencies and omissions.
The uncertainty with tension and
the values of tension do not have
the same significant digits. How
was mass converted to weight?
The uncertainty in the mass per
unit length by the first method is
not calculated, just correctly
stated. The units for length
squared are wrong in the data
table but correct on the graph. To
earn a complete the student would
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:26
Investigation 9
Detecting Gamma Radiation From Distances

The aim of this investigation is to determine the relationship between the intensity of radiation
from a radioactive gamma source and the distance from the source.
The independent variable is this distance r between the detector and the source. The dependent
variable is the intensity I.
The background radiation count is recorded three times and the results are shown below. Each
count is recorded for 60 s three times and got the following counts per minute.
DCP 1
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 I Background Average
counts/min. counts/min. counts/min. counts/min.
23 20 12 18
DCP 2 23 + 20 + 12
I Background Average = = 18.333 ≈ 18 counts/min.
3
Fours values of r were chosen and the number of counts measured three times at each distance
each for a period of 60 s.
DCP 1 Distance Amount of Radiation Detected per Minute

r / cm ± 0.2 cm I / counts per minute
1.0 128 98 116
5.0 40 41 47
10.0 21 33 24
15.0 24 27 23
The average background count rate is subtracted from each measurement and the average count
for the adjusted values is calculated.
DCP 2 Distance Amount of Radiation Detected per Minute Average Radiation

r / cm I / counts per minute per Minute
Iave / counts
per min.
1.0 128–18=110 98–18=80 116–18=98 96
5.0 40–18=22 41–18=23 47–18=29 26.7
10.0 21–18=3 33–18=15 24–18=6 8
15.0 24–18=6 27–18=9 23–18=5 6.7

Investigation 9
DCP 3 The uncertainty for the distance is ±0.2 cm. Error bars are shown below.
The above graph shows the adjusted activity count as a function of distance. The graph below
shows count rate plotted against 1 r 2 . First the uncertainties are calculated.
DCP 2
r / cm
∆r% =
∆r
100% = r 2 / cm 2 ∆r 2 % = 2 (∆r%) =
∆r = ±0.2 cm r
1.0 20% 1.0 40% = 0.4 cm2

5.0 4% 25 8% = 1 cm2
10.0 2% 100 4% = 4 cm2
15.0 1% 225 2% = 5 cm2
1 1 1 § 1 1 ·
/ cm −2 (min ) (max ) 1 (max) + (min)
¨ ∆r 2
∆r 2 ¸
r 2
r + ∆r 2
2
r − ∆r 2
2
± 2 = ±¨ ¸ / cm −2
∆r 2
¨© ¸¹
1.0 0.71 2.5 ±1.6
0.040 0.038 0.042 ±0.04
0.010 0.0096 0.010 ±0.01
0.0044 0.0043 0.005 ±0.005

Investigation 9
DCP 3 Gamma Radiation against the Reciprocal of Distance Squared
CE 1 This graph does not look convincing because three data points are close together and one is far
away. Also, the error bars do not include the best straight-line, except the last data point but the
uncertainty here is way too big to mean anything. However, the general relationship is shown to
us in the first graph. The experiment supports the theory that the radiation detected per minute
will decrease as the distance between the source and the detector gets bigger.
CE 2 The experiment has a lot of systematic and random errors involved that resulted in the lack of
precision and accuracy of the data.
CE 3 Random errors were caused mostly by the nature of radioactive emissions that is very
unpredictable. To diminish this problem, we could extend the time period of collecting data as
well as increasing the number of readings collected.
Mostly the environment in which the practical was performed caused large systematic errors.
There was consistent random radiation in the background and this interfered greatly in the
collection of data. Subtracting the background radiation helped in reducing the inaccuracies due
to radiation form the surroundings. Another cause of error was due to shifted positions in the
base of the detector.

Introduction
Investigation 9: Detecting gamma
radiation from distances support material


Student work Achievement 4 2 Manipulative skills in

level
Overview
Achievement p, c, n,
of aspects p p, p Investigation 1
Investigation 3
Investigation 5
Data collection and
processing Investigation 6
Recording raw data
Investigation 8
Partial
Investigation 9
The raw data is clear and easy to
follow. However, there are no Investigation 10
uncertainties in the count rate.
© IBO 2007
Processing raw data
Complete
The calculations are done
correctly, including the propagation
of uncertainties for the second
graph. The inverse square
calculations are presumably done
in the graphing program.
Presenting processed data

Partial
The second graph is relevant but it
should have minimum and
maximum slopes based on the first
and last uncertainty bars. The first
graph is not an inverse square law
curve.
Conclusion and
evaluation
Concluding
Not at all
The conclusion about a decreasing
count with distance is correct but
this does not address the aim of
the experiment. The relation
between intensity and distance has
not been established. The second
graph is inconclusive and the
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:26
Investigation 10
DETERMINING THE UNIVERSAL GAS CONSTANT
The general gas law relates pressure P, volume V, temperature T, the number of gram moles n,
and the universal gas constant R, as PV = n RT . A sealed syringe with a fixed mass of gas has
the volume reduced by placing masses on top of the plunger. The atmospheric pressure is P0 , the
mass is m, the plunger’s cross-sectional surface area is A, gravity is g and the resulting applied
mg
pressure is force over area or .
A
§ mg · 1 § g·
From the equation nRT = PV = ¨ P0 + V we obtain (R nT ) = m ¨ + P0 . A graph of the
© A ¹̧ V © A ¹̧
reciprocal of the volume against the applied mass yields a straight line from which R is
calculated. This assumes the temperature is kept constant and we determine n.
A calibrated syringe is sealed with a plunger. Masses are carefully placed on top of the plunger
as shown.

Investigation 10
DCP 1 The syringe is calibrated from zero to 35 cc in steps of 1 cc. It is estimated that the uncertainty in
the measurement of volume is 0.4 cc. It is difficult to read the scale and the edge of the plunger
has a noticeable width, so the uncertainty is at least ±0.4 cc even though the least count reading
is 0.1 cc.
Each 500 g mass was measured on a digital balance with a precision of 0.1 g. In all cases the
measured mass was less than 1 g off. A typical measure is m1 = 499.3 g . The masses are thus
assumed to be accurate to ±1 g or ∆m = ±0.001kg .
Mass
Raw Data m / kg Volume
V / cm 3
Measure ∆m = ±0.001kg
∆V = ±0.4 cm 3
per 500 g mass
1 0.000 34.6
2 0.500 33.0
3 1.000 30.0
4 1.500 26.9
5 2.000 25.1
6 2.500 23.5
7 3.000 22.0
8 3.500 20.1
9 4.000 19.0
10 4.500 17.8
11 5.000 17.0
The diameter d of the syringe was measured with vernier calipers and found to be
d = (2.33 ± 0.01) × 10 −2 m .

Investigation 10
2
DCP 2 § d·
The area of the plunger surface is A = π ¨ = 4.26 × 10 −4 m 2 .
© 2 ¹̧
The room temperature was 16°C or 289 K. To determine n, P0 was measured with a barometer
and found to be 1.07 × 10 5 Pa .
( )
One mole of a gas at STP T = 273K, P = 1.01 × 10 5 Pa occupies 2.24 × 10 −2 m 3 . Therefore
P0V0 T0 273 × 1.07 × 3.46 × 10 −5

n= = −2
= 1.55 × 10 −3 mol
PSTPVSTP TSTP 289 × 1.01 × 2.24 × 10
where 3.46 × 10 −5 m 3 is the volume of the syringe at 289K. Gravity g is assumed to be 9.81m s−2 .
All calculations, including the slope, were done on the spreadsheet of the graphing program
1 1
LoggerPro 3.4.6. One example: = = 2.89 × 10 4 m −3 .
V1 34.6 × 10 −5 m 3
Here is a graph of the reciprocal of volume (the dependent variable) against the mass (the
independent variable).

Investigation 10
DCP 3
Reciprocal of Volume against Mass
§ mg · § 1· § g·
Where nRT = ¨ P0 + V we find nRT ¨ = m¨ + P0 and then solve for R.
© A ¹̧ © V ¹̧ © A ¹̧
g
CE 1 The slope is = 6.214 × 10 3 m −3kg −1 and so we find R = = 8.27 J mol−1 K −1 .
(slope ) A nT
The experimental value is less than 1% off the accepted value of R, which is 8.31J mol−1 K −1 .
However, this does not mean that the accepted value lies within the uncertainty range of the
experimental value. For a correct statement of our results, in the form Rexp ± ∆Rexp , we need to
process the uncertainties.
Here are the uncertainties in the reciprocal of the volume for the first and last data points. These
are used to construct error bars on the second graph.

Investigation 10
DCP 3
1 1
Data (max ) (min )
Number V V
#1 1 1
= 28.6 × 10 3 m −3 = 29.2 × 10 3 m −3
28.9 × 10 3 m −3 V1 + ∆V V1 − ∆V
#11 1 1
= 60.2 × 10 3 m −3 = 57.5 × 10 3 m −3
58.8 × 10 3 m −3 V11 − ∆V V11 + ∆V
The next graph shows the minimum and maximum slopes using the uncertainties in the volume
measurements of the first and last data points.
CE 1 The maximum slope is 6.32 × 10 3 m −3 and the minimum slope is 5.66 × 10 3 m −3 . The
experimental range for R is thus:
g
RMin = = 8.13J mol−1 K −1
(slopeMax )A nT

Investigation 10
CE 1 g
RMax = = 9.08 J mol−1 K −1
(slopeMin )A nT
RMax − RMin 9.08 − 8.13

The uncertainty in R is ∆R = ± − mol−1 K −1 = ±0.5 mol−1 K −1 .
2 2
Therefore the experimental value and its uncertainty is
Rexp ± ∆Rexp ≈ (8.3 ± 0.5 )J mol−1K −1 .
In conclusion, the measured value of R was found have an uncertainty of about ±6%. The
experimental range is from 7.8 to 8.8 J mol−1K −1 and this range includes the accepted value,
where Raccept = 8.3 J mol−1K −1 .
CE 2 Clearly, the source of greatest error in the experiment is in the measurement of the volume. The
mass uncertainty is only a fraction of one percent, the area uncertainty is about 0.4% and the
temperature uncertainty is only 0.3%. None of these are significant. (One interesting note is that
using the graph intercept, an experimental value for atmospheric pressure is calculated as
1.02 × 10 5 Pa . This is about 5% off the barometer measurement.)
There is also a reliance on other data that is assumed rather than measured such as the value of g
and the determination of n, and there is the problem of the plunger sticking and hence giving
inaccurate readings.
CE 3 The slight but noticeable scatter of data about the best straight-line could be improved by taking
more readings. Using a much larger syringe with a finer calibration scale could increase the
accuracy in the volume. This would also enable more readings to be taken and this would help
eliminate inaccuracies due to the plunger sticking. However, with repeated readings there is the
possibility of air leaking from the syringe.
To overcome the dependency on assumed data, an alternative method is needed such that a value
of R can be determined from directly measured quantities.

Investigation 10
Finally, the first data point, where there is no applied mass, appears to be off the trend line
compared to the rest of the data. Excluding this data point the graph slope gives a value of
R = 7.66 J mol−1K −1 which is actually lower than the value of R that includes the first data point.
CE 3 Perhaps the mass of the plunger or friction between the plunger and the syringe makes a
difference, but it seems insignificant here.

Introduction
Investigation 10: Determining the
universal gas constant. support material


Student work Achievement 6 6 Manipulative skills in

level
Overview
Achievement c, c, c c, c,
of aspects c Investigation 1
Investigation 3
Investigation 5
Data collection and
processing Investigation 6
Recording raw data
Investigation 8
Complete
Investigation 9
The basic data was recorded
thoroughly. Investigation 10
Processing raw data © IBO 2007

Complete
Most of the calculations are
explained and an example of the
spreadsheet calculation was given.
Conversion calculations, from cc to
cubic metres, however, were not
given but correctly done. Error and
uncertainties were appreciated.
The two graphs demonstrated that
the student appreciated what was
being done.
Presenting processed data

Complete
Relevant graphs were drawn.
Uncertainties were recognized
when the minimum and maximum
slopes were constructed. The
actual uncertainty bar was not
drawn because of an asymmetry of
the uncertainty with the reciprocal
but the data points were correctly
calculated and slopes constructed.
This is justified here because of
software limitations.
Conclusion and
evaluation
Concluding
1 of 1 10-Jan-09 22:27

IB Physics TSM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IB Physics TSM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IB Physics TSM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Physics teacher support material http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/IBDocs/IA/files/howToUse_en.

Physics teacher support material

Physics teacher support material

The design criterion in

The second type of prompt is where neither the dependent Investigation 3

A student’s research question is appropriate when it asks for a Investigation 9

Examples of appropriate teacher prompts

Batteries and lemons

Electrical cells can be produced using lemons or

Dependent: The dependent variable is given.

Student How does the spacing between electrodes

Physics teacher support material

The design criterion in

Students may express uncertainties as absolute, fractional, or

All students are expected to construct, where relevant, uncertainty bars on

Qualitative and quantitative comments about errors and uncertainties may

Physics teacher support material

The design criterion in

reads/listens to instructions before asking for help Investigation 6

Aspect 2: Carrying out techniques © IBO 2007

chooses an instrument appropriate to the length to be

Cathode-ray oscilloscope (CRO) investigation

uses a CRO competently

Building an electric motor

Most good educational suppliers sell DC motor kits, complete with

Physics teacher support material

Assessed student work

5 Investigating collisions in x x x Investigation 3

8 The mass per unit length of x x © IBO 2007

9 Detecting gamma radiation x x

10 Determining the universal x x

Investigating the relationship between the drop height and time

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007 

 © International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

DATA AND ANALYSIS

Now I need to process my data to find averages.

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007 

Processed Data / Averages

 © International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007 

mMax − mMin = 3.43 − 2.35 = 1.08

Half of this range is the uncertainty in the best straight line.

The general equation y = mx + c for my data is now T = m H + c where the proportionality

PROBLEMS WITH ANALYSIS

 © International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007 

T = kH n → logT = log k + n log H

With logarithms, we can say that n = 0.5 or T ∝ H 0.5 which is T ∝ H or T 2 ∝ H . Here is a

 © International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007 

Physics teacher support material

Assessed student work

the time of six bounces of a super-ball The design criterion in

Errors and uncertainties in

Criterion D DCP CE Manipulative skills in

Developing a method for the

Data collection and

D 2 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

DCP 1 Results Table

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007 

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007

© International Baccalaureate Organization 2007