Measuring one second with a bouncing ball

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the theoretical relationship between the height a ball bounces and the time it spends in the air, specifically noting that a ball bouncing to 1.225 meters should be airborne for one second, with slight variances based on height. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately determining when the ball leaves the ground and how air resistance affects different ball sizes. Participants express a lack of recorded experiments specifically measuring one second using bouncing balls, despite existing studies on bounce degradation and external factors like temperature and air pressure. Suggestions include using a steel ball bearing for more accurate results and employing high-speed cameras to capture motion and improve measurement precision. Overall, while using a bouncing ball to measure time may not yield the highest accuracy, it remains an interesting experimental approach.
thorpie
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hello
Theoretically any ball that bounces 1.225 metres high is in the air for one second. This is fairly precise, +/-4% time variance is +/- 10 cm height variance, so bouncing to a height of 1.13 metres is 0.96 seconds and to a height of 1.32 is 1.04 seconds.
The theory is at least dependent upon identifying when he ball “leaves” the ground, which part of the ball is “at 1.225” metres high, and what size ball becomes measurably affected by air resistance.
Is anyone aware of any recorded experiments that quantify how long a second is, with various bouncing balls. There seem to be lots of discussion on bouncing balls and degradation of height bounced but nothing on measuring one second of time, and I cannot think of a simpler way to measure one second of time accurately from base.
Thank you for your time
Glenn
 
Science news on Phys.org
thorpie said:
Hello
Theoretically any ball that bounces 1.225 metres high is in the air for one second. This is fairly precise, +/-4% time variance is +/- 10 cm height variance, so bouncing to a height of 1.13 metres is 0.96 seconds and to a height of 1.32 is 1.04 seconds.
The theory is at least dependent upon identifying when he ball “leaves” the ground, which part of the ball is “at 1.225” metres high, and what size ball becomes measurably affected by air resistance.
Is anyone aware of any recorded experiments that quantify how long a second is, with various bouncing balls. There seem to be lots of discussion on bouncing balls and degradation of height bounced but nothing on measuring one second of time, and I cannot think of a simpler way to measure one second of time accurately from base.
Thank you for your time
Glenn
I'd recommend using a large steel ball bearing bouncing off of a thick steel plate. That will give you very little loss in the bounces, and a more accurate measure of what you want to show, IMO.
thorpie said:
I cannot think of a simpler way to measure one second of time accurately from base.
Base what?
 


Hi Glenn,

That's a really interesting question! I haven't come across any specific experiments that measure the duration of one second using bouncing balls, but I did find a few studies that may be relevant.

One study from 2015 used a high-speed camera to capture the motion of a bouncing ball and compared it to theoretical predictions. They found that the ball's motion was affected by factors such as air resistance and the elasticity of the ball, which could impact the accuracy of using a bouncing ball to measure time.

Another study from 2019 looked at the effect of temperature and air pressure on the bounce height of a ball. They found that these factors can also affect the accuracy of using a bouncing ball to measure time.

Overall, it seems like using a bouncing ball to measure one second of time may not be the most precise method. However, it could still be a fun and educational experiment to try! Perhaps using a high-speed camera and controlling for factors like air resistance and temperature could help improve the accuracy of the results.

I hope this helps and let me know if you come across any other interesting studies on this topic!

 
Sequences and series are related concepts, but they differ extremely from one another. I believe that students in integral calculus often confuse them. Part of the problem is that: Sequences are usually taught only briefly before moving on to series. The definition of a series involves two related sequences (terms and partial sums). Both have operations that take in a sequence and output a number (the limit or the sum). Both have convergence tests for convergence (monotone convergence and...
Back
Top