Examining the Motion of Two Metal
Balls Using Video Software
Arya Jain
September 5, 2024
Introduction
The way we perceive motion, including its direction and speed, depends on our frame
of reference. A frame of reference is an abstract plane that defines an object’s position, speed,
and velocity relative to a central point. For instance, consider a moving car: there are two
frames of reference—one from an external observer standing at a street light and one from
the driver of this car. The external observer sees the driver moving with the car, while the driver
feels stationary and perceives the external observer moving in the opposite direction.
Measurements in one frame of reference can be converted to another. For example, you
can calculate the driver’s velocity relative to the observer and vice versa. Our lab aims to
determine if motion is truly relative and whether video-tracking software can help us draw
these conclusions.
Methodology
1. Required Materials
● Two small U-channels - will be acting as ramps that allow the ball to move on track
● Two slightly larger U-channels - can connect with the first two, making an elbow joint
● Table side clamps to hold up the smaller U-channels at a sufficient angle
● Two smooth metal balls
● Two standard weight calibration weights - stop the ball motion at the end
● A camera to record the motion of the balls
● Video tracking software (https://jst.lucademian.com/)
2. Setup
Use the table clamps to orient the smaller U-channel to be angled and allow for the ball
to gain momentum when rolling down before being on the straight track. The ramps were set
to different angles and on different sides to ensure that the velocities and direction of ball 1
and ball 2 were different. We started the two balls on different tracks and allowed them to
move until hitting the metal stopper placed at the end of both tracks.
After analyzing the data on https://jst.lucademian.com/ we used Google Sheets to
graph our data and find the motion, velocity, and acceleration functions for both balls. We
imported the position values and time values from the tracking software and found velocity
and acceleration by taking a first and second derivative or position. After confirming that
velocity is linear and acceleration is constant we knew the data was valid. In the case of
non-linear velocity or increasing or decreasing acceleration, the trials must be redone. This
tracking process was done on both of the balls during this experiment.
3. Procedure
● Hold both metal balls at the top of their own ramps while someone gets in position to
capture both tracks in one frame
● Both balls will be released simultaneously and someone will start the recording
● The metal weights will stop the balls and the student with the phone will stop recording
● Upload the video onto recording software(we used https://jst.lucademian.com/):
○ Extract position versus time values and add them to a Google spreadsheet
○ Find the velocity and acceleration of each ball by taking the first and second
derivatives respectfully of the position versus time graph
○ Use the insert graph tool on Google Sheets to display p(x), v(x), and a(x)
○ Repeat the steps again for the second ball
4. Reducing Errors
● We ensured that the tracks were both clean and friction-less prior to releasing the balls
● We ensured that the transition from the smaller U channel to the larger one was
seamless and retained its trajectory
● Videos were trimmed and edited to capture only the portion where the ball traveled
along the larger U channel to ensure that the velocity of the video was constant
throughout
Results
Ball 1
The picture below displays the path of the first ball rolling along the U-channel track.
Position vs. Time data for Ball 1
Time (s) Position (pixels) (rounded to 3 decimal places)
1.184 0.000
1.295 26.016
1.332 51.992
1.369 74.927
1.406 92.618
1.443 114.472
1.554 156.098
1.517 176.911
1.591 197.724
1.628 214.374
1.665 234.146
1.702 253.919
1.739 275.772
1.776 291.382
1.813 311.154
0.957 350.699
0.99 367.350
1.023 390.244
1.056 406.894
Ball 1 graphs in pixels vs seconds (position, velocity, and acceleration)
The graph below contains the position, velocity, and acceleration functions of ball 1 and
is displayed in pixels per second. The Blue line is the position vs. time graph of ball 1 found by
simply graphing the data. The red line is the velocity graph of ball 1 and has a constant slope of
607 pixels per second, found via the trend-line equation at the top of the graph. Lastly, the green
line on the t-axis represents the acceleration of ball 1: zero since the velocity is constant.
Ball 2
The picture below shows the path of ball two as it travels down the U channel
Position vs time data- Ball 2
Time (s) Position (pixels) (rounded to 3 decimal places)
0 550.414
0.037 518.133
0.074 483.339
0.111 455.550
0.148 427.685
0.185 398.449
0.222 369.061
0.259 343.518
0.296 315.082
0.333 288.587
0.37 236.778
0.407 206.819
0.444 181.771
0.481 154.058
0.518 127.487
0.555 104.190
0.592 75.601
0.629 52.799
0.666 22.117
Ball 2 graphs in pixels vs seconds (position, velocity, and acceleration)
The graph below contains the position, velocity, and acceleration functions of ball 2 and
is displayed in pixels per second. The Blue line is the position vs. time graph of ball 2 found by
simply graphing the data, since ball 2 is starting opposite from ball 1, its position decreases as
time increases. The red line is the velocity graph of ball 2 and has a constant slope of -798
pixels per second, found via the trend-line equation at the top of the graph, the slope is negative
as it is moving opposite to ball one. Lastly, the green line on the t-axis represents the
acceleration of ball 1: zero since the velocity is constant.
Relative Velocities
Relative velocity can be represented in two different ways: Ball 1 relative to Ball 2, or Ball 2
relative to Ball 1
● Ball 1 average velocity: 607 pixels/second
● Ball 2 average velocity: -798 pixels/second
● The balls are going in opposite directions and therefore they would perceive each other
as going faster
● Ball 1 relative to Ball 2 = Velocity B1 - Velocity B2 = 607 - (-798) = 1405 pixels/seconds
● Ball 2 relative to Ball 1 = Velocity B2 - Velocity B1 = -798 - (607) = -1405 pixels/seconds
● Relative velocity have equivalent magnitude, simply in opposite directions
Sources of Error
There is no defined error percentage for our trials as many values are subject to change
both during and between runs. Values such as surface friction of the ramps, velocity lost during
transition from smaller U channel to larger U channel, and ramp lengths will be difficult to
calculate and may vary between runs.
Systematic
● Systematic error is caused by the experiment preparation. Such errors will affect the
results of every trial. We set up two ramps opposite to each other meaning the track
lengths and weight placements would slightly differ from each other meaning they
likely covered different distances and experienced different track resistance.
Random
● Random error is due to aspects independent of setup. They vary between trials. During
our runs, it is likely that the balls were released at slightly different times. This
combined with slightly different weight placements and different track resistance
would cause skewed results.
Conclusion
Motion is relative, as the ball’s velocity changes based on the frame of reference. From
the frame of an external observer, Ball 1 moves at 607 pixels/second, while Ball 2 moves at
-798 pixels/second, as shown by the graphs and data. However, from each ball's perspective,
they appear to move faster than they are: 1405 & -1405 pixels/second respectively. In the
future, I would measure the track lengths more precisely and convert the graph data from
pixels to meters.
Another takeaway from this investigation has been the reliability of digital
motion-tracking software. The precision of the data and ease of use far trumps the traditional
method of pen and paper. Though not perfect, tracking software mitigates the need to rely on
the human eye to find the interval measurement. Additionally, the tracking software
extrapolated the data from the video much faster than a student would be able to. All in all
digital motion-tracking software is a much better alternative for students when looking to find
the motion of an object.
This investigation has real-world applications. Video tracking software is crucial for
security and surveillance, traffic control, and autonomous vehicles. Whether being used by
students for learning or the police to catch offenders of the law, video tracking software proves
to be a valuable tool in this modern age.
References
Vaara, R.-L., & Gomes Sasaki, D. G. (2019). Teaching kinematic graphs in an
undergraduate course using an active methodology mediated by video analysis. Lumat:
International Journal of Math, Science and Technology Education, 7(1). Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.31129/lumat.7.1.374
