DeSantis-Orjada 1

Introduction
In 2012, over 34,000 individuals died in vehicular collisions, a 4.35%
increase from the previous year, and motor vehicles remain the number one killer
of adolescents. However, the United States of America is in the first quartile of
car accidents compared to the world. Countries such as Albania, Libya, and
Eritrea have fatality rates four times higher than the United States. (Obviously,
the lack of attention focused onto the act of driving creates a higher risk to
distracted drivers and the individuals they encounter.) Airbags are the first safety
measure in the occurrence of a collision, rapidly inflating and deflating to
decrease the full force of an impact. Although airbags have remained the most
prominent safety device in automobiles for over 40 years, they may not provide
the most optimal protection if applied to children due to the high force of an
airbag collision. Because of this, a new safety device is needed to determine if
unorthodox packing materials and other shock absorbers can absorb a high
impact force.
The materials tested in the research are gelatin, which is an excellent
shock absorber and occasionally used effectively in egg drop experiments, and
bubble wrap, the common packing material known mainly as a tool of diversion.
As both materials are widely known for absorbing impact force, the two seemed
likely candidates to test. They would undergo a procedure in which a pinewood
derby car with a marble resting on it would travel down a ramp at high speeds,
and collide with the impact absorbing material to send the passenger, the

DeSantis-Orjada 2
marble, flying. The work done in this experiment could inspire cost-effective,
efficient and safe impact absorbers for use in motor vehicles.

DeSantis-Orjada 3
Review of Literature
In order to understand the science behind collisions, past research must
be examined. In addition to comparing to other experiments, the processes
behind collision the different scientific concepts must be explained. This research
includes the vital mechanics of force, inertia, momentum, and impulse. It also
includes the science behind the materials used in the experiment.
Research on force absorption done by Qiao, Yang, and Bobaru found
evidence of wave propagation, dynamic cracks, and delamination, thermal
effects, dislocation generation, growth, and motion acting concurrently. The trio
studied recent developments in force absorption, and reviewed models and
materials such as metal foam and memory alloys. They also looked into the
effects of their research on spaceships, in which collisions are much more
dreaded, due to the increased force of impacts. They concluded that while the
effect of the materials during an impact is important, this information makes it
more difficult to design high-energy impact absorbing materials that could protect
passengers and absorb energy in the event of a crash. They also concluded that
further research involving test crashes is needed to improve impact-absorbing
materials and structures. Their experiment differs from this research by the
method used during experimentation. While they used mathematical formulas
and technology to theoretically demonstrate, extrapolate, and investigate the
topic, the researchers used an example model of a crash, where the findings
involve math and technology. In addition to the basic difference of investigation
method, the researchers will be testing only one type of crash, and four types of

DeSantis-Orjada 4
high-energy impact absorbing materials separated from the vehicle, while they
tested different structures, models, and materials.
Force
Force is the most common mechanic in physics, explaining most
relationships in Newtons Laws. Formulaically, Force equals the mass times the
acceleration of an object. A force is quite literally, a push or a pull in a certain
direction onto an object. This definition means that any motion or contact
between two objects can result in a force. The force exerted in our experiment is
quite literally the mass of the car multiplied by the cars sudden deceleration upon
impact.
Momentum
Momentum is defined as the product of mass and velocity, and is a
property that helps to explain collisions. It plays a large part in collisions due to
the laws of momentum conservation, which state that the change in velocity
multiplied by the change in mass of an object in a collision is equal to the change
in velocity multiplied by the change in mass of a second object in the collision.
Momentum explains why the marble resting in the cart will be ejected from the
cart upon the collision. Because the marble has a smaller mass than the car, it
should have a larger momentum and will fly forward after the car has been
stopped.
Inertia
Inertia is a property of matter, and defined as a tendency to resist change
depending on mass. Inertia is the driving force between Newtons Second Law,

DeSantis-Orjada 5
and is explained by Newtons First Law. Inertias tendency to resist change
explains why a novice ice skater may find it hard to stop or change direction
when moving. It also explains why one may take their foot off of the gas pedal
while driving and maintain forward motion. Inertia explains that collisions occur
when one or more objects resist a change in velocity and continue on a path until
they collide.
Impulse
Impulse is defined as the change in linear momentum of an object.
Impulse states that mass multiplied by the change in velocity is equal to force
times time. This states that a force applied for a longer time will have a larger
change in velocity. This relates to collisions because the inverse is also true. In a
collision, the purpose of a crumple zone in an automobile is to increase the
amount of time in a collision, which leads to a decrease in the momentum
exerted onto the occupants of the vehicle. Even though the force felt by the
vehicle does not change, the increase in time decreases the relative force
exerted onto the occupants, thus saving lives. Crashtest.org describes the
crumple zones purpose well, as They redistribute and decrease the initial force
before it reaches the vehicles occupants. To reduce the initial force equally
results to reduced deceleration (Crumple Zone) Impulse also helps to explain
the nature of gelatin, which has a low impulse, making it a better shock absorber
when stressed.
Jell-O acts as an extremely successful shock absorber in many
experiments where it would seem an unlikely choice. One of the secrets to

DeSantis-Orjada 6
gelatins success is due to collagen chains that are suspended in the solid of the
gelatin, and the liquid of gelatin that strengthens the bonds. Because of these
bonds, gelatin has a high elasticity, meaning that it often will absorb a force with
little damage, often in a perfectly elastic collision, which is defined by Paul Gluck
as a collision where both direction and energy are conserved. Its usefulness is
proven in experiments such as the infamous egg drop lab, where an egg is
dropped from a certain height and must be insulated in some fashion to avoid
damage. An E-mail from Jay Shapiro explains Jell-Os usefulness as due to its
density and its liquidity. According to them:
The density of our shock absorber materials is an important factor that will
determine how fast the egg will stop. The low density of the feathers does very
little to stop the egg. The feathers act more like springs that compress to stop it.
But the Jell-O has a much higher density, and therefore higher inertia to resist
and slow the falling egg (MadSci). MadScis explanation states that the Jell-O
both encompasses the egg due to its liquidity, and is dense enough to decrease
the downward momentum. This experiment can be applied to the current
research by using Jell-O as a shock absorber for the cart, and likewise expect it
to decrease the momentum of the cart, and possibly the marble with it, due to
Jell-Os properties described above.
Bubble wrap acts as a great shock absorber for many of the same
reasons as air bags, primarily due to their nature to pop. When the air bubbles
pop, the collisions duration is increased, and the amount of force impacted is
thus decreased. As Marshall Brain states on the value of an airbag in a collision:

DeSantis-Orjada 7
Even that tiny amount of space and time is valuable, however, if the system can
slow the passenger evenly rather than forcing an abrupt halt to his or her motion
(Brain). He states that the time is the most important safety feature able to be
provided in a collision, and this is the mechanic behind bubble wrap, protecting
packages by popping.

Problem Statement

DeSantis-Orjada 8
Problem:

What material will decrease the force of a horizontal impact

collision the most?

Hypothesis:

If 1.91cm diameter bubble wrap, 0.95cm diameter bubble

wrap, low viscosity Jell-O and high viscosity Jell-O is tested
to decrease the amount of force impacted by a car rolling
down a ramp, then the low viscosity Jell-O will decrease the
impact by the greatest degree.

Data Measured:

The independent variable was the material used (1.91cm

bubble wrap, 0.95cm bubble wrap, low viscosity Jell-O, and
high viscosity Jell-O) as the shock absorber. The dependent
variables were the distance the marble was flung after
impact, which was measured in cm, the maximum
acceleration experienced upon impact, measured in m/s 2,
and the force upon impact, which was calculated by
multiplying the acceleration from each trial by the cars mass
(F=ma). The statistical test used was three 2 Sample t-Test
which compared the mean forces exerted upon impact.

Experimental Design

DeSantis-Orjada 9
Materials:
(3) Bubble Wrap Sheets
(1.91cm Diameter)

Marble (0.5cm Radius)

(10) Carbon Paper (8.5 x 11)

(3) Bubble Wrap Sheets

(0.95cm Diameter)

Paper (91cm x 100cm)

(4) Jell-O 6oz Packages

(2) Wood Blocks

(4cm x 8.5cm x 100cm)

Pinewood Derby Car Building

Kit Car Body
(5cm x 3cm x 4cm)

Meter Stick

Concrete Brick
(9cm x 5cm x 4cm)
Ramp (106.5cm x 107.5cm,
slope decrease by 5 intervals
until 30, increase by 5
intervals until 0)
3M Scotch Painters Tape

Vernier Accelerometer with

LabQuest
TI-Nspire Calculator
Ohaus Scale (g, E4000)
(6) Hot Wheels Tracks (57.8cm)
Plastic Sheet (61ccm x 91cm)

Marble
Car

Hot Wheels Track

Ramp

High Viscosity
Jell-O

0.95cm Bubble Wrap

1.91cm Bubble Wrap

Low Viscosity
Jell-O

Figure 1. Materials
Procedure:

DeSantis-Orjada 10
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Obtain ramp.
Build Pinewood Derby car, see Appendix A.
Make Jell-O, see appendices B and C.
Mass the car and accelerometer, with and without the marble present.
Attach the accelerometer to the car using screws.
Attach a plastic sheet to the bottom of the ramp.
Link three Hot Wheels tracks together creating two strips, and attach these to
the ramp and plastic sheet using tape, place the two tracks approximately 3.5
cm apart.
8. Tape the ten sheets of carbon paper together in a 2x5 format.
9. Place brick at the end of the Hot Wheels tracks and place the bubble wrap or
Jell-O in front of the brick.
10. Put paper on floor in front of the brick and cover with the sheet of carbon
paper with the smaller end by the brick.
11. Place the two wood blocks about half a meter away from the edge of the
paper and form a V shape.
12. Place the car at the top of the ramp with the marble and accelerometer on it,
and zero the LabQuest.
13. Press start button to begin collecting data and release the car simultaneously.
14. Record distance marble travels by using the meter stick to measure the
distance from the mark left behind by the marble to the brick
15. Record the maximum acceleration of car at impact by clicking on the lowest
point shown on the graph.
16. Calculate, and record, the force by using the F=ma formula.
17. Clean up any potential mess, and rotate bubble wrap or insert a new piece of
Jell-O to prevent previous trials destruction of materials from effecting next
trials results.
18. Repeat Steps 12-17 until all trials are completed.

Diagram:

DeSantis-Orjada 11

Figure 2. Experimental Set-Up

The photo, shown above in Figure 2, is the research set-up. It is a view
from the top of the ramp looking down to where the brick is covered in bubble
wrap, the carbon paper is on top of the paper and the accelerometer is attached
to the car. The tracks are attached to the track and plastic sheet.

Data and Observations

Data:
Table 1. 1.91cm Bubble Wrap Data
1.91cm Bubble Wrap
Type

Day

1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Trial #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Time (s)
1.14
1.52
1.68
0.96
0.98
0.80
1.62
1.64
1.36
0.98
1.58
1.36
1.68

Acceleration (m/s)
-28.90
-176.30
-82.30
-64.70
-46.60
-112.40
-75.60
-40.50
-35.40
-33.40
-10.00
-18.70
-19.90

Distance (m)
0.304
0.370
0.320
0.520
0.380
0.805
0.430
0.363
0.610
0.660
0.365
0.750
0.510

Force (N)
-3.572
-21.792
-10.173
-7.997
-5.760
-13.893
-9.344
-5.006
-4.375
-4.128
-1.236
-2.311
-2.459

DeSantis-Orjada 12

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

1.06
1.48
1.34
0.94
0.78
0.70
1.44
0.94
0.90
1.01
1.06
1.42
1.42
1.22
1.24
1.74
1.36

-66.50
-35.70
-13.60
-27.20
-31.40
-31.90
-25.10
-32.30
-13.40
-33.20
-53.50
-70.00
-37.80
-25.30
-28.10
-44.70
-32.00

0.785
0.650
0.535
0.340
0.565
0.200
0.595
0.340
0.325
0.810
0.560
0.120
0.195
0.250
0.320
0.120
0.445

-8.220
-4.412
-1.681
-3.362
-3.881
-3.943
-3.102
-3.992
-1.656
-4.103
-6.613
-8.652
-4.672
-3.127
-3.473
-5.525
-3.955

Table 1 shows the raw data for the first type of data, the 1.91cm bubble wrap
data.

Table 2. 0.95cm Bubble Wrap Data

0.95cm Bubble Wrap
Day Type Trial #
3
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
2
5
3
2
6
3
2
7
3
2
8
3
2
9
3
2
10
4
2
11
4
2
12
4
2
13
4
2
14
4
2
15
4
2
16

Time (s) Acceleration (m/s2) Distance (m)

1.42
-77.3
0.46
1.38
-47.4
0.545
1.16
-42.1
0.34
1.46
-26.9
0.115
1.56
-17.9
0.315
1.34
-14.5
0.37
1.4
-51.3
0.297
1.6
-46
0.33
1.7
-20.1
0.31
1.44
-30.4
0.3
1.46
-33.8
0.32
1.68
-12.9
0.21
1.58
-15.7
0.53
1.32
-23
0.2
1.5
-45.9
0.9
1.9
-50.2
0.8

Force (N)
-9.555
-5.859
-5.204
-3.325
-2.212
-1.792
-6.341
-5.686
-2.484
-3.757
-4.178
-1.594
-1.940
-2.843
-5.673
-6.205

DeSantis-Orjada 13

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

1.5
1.32
1.44
1.44
1.42
1.2
1.46
1.64
1.6
1.46
1.24
1.58
1.62
1.68

-13.9
-80.9
-38.9
-37.5
-34.7
-25
-27.2
-33
-76.2
-117.5
-21
-19.4
-29
-22.6

0.175
0.405
0.14
0.53
0.215
0.11
0.56
0.375
0.275
0.34
0.11
0.357
0.12
0.38

-1.718
-10.000
-4.808
-4.635
-4.289
-3.090
-3.362
-4.079
-9.419
-14.524
-2.595
-2.398
-3.584
-2.793

Table 2 shows the raw data for the 0.95cm bubble wrap collisions.

Table 3. Low Viscosity Jell-O Data

Day Type Trial #

4
3
1
4
3
2
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
3
6
4
3
7
4
3
8
4
3
9
4
3
10
4
3
11
4
3
12
4
3
13
4
3
14
4
3
15
4
3
16
4
3
17
5
3
18
5
3
19
5
3
20

Time (s)
1.52
1.30
1.38
1.36
1.68
1.46
1.28
1.50
1.44
1.20
1.36
1.88
1.18
1.34
1.38
1.32
1.68
1.32
1.18
1.28

Low Viscosity Jell-O

Acceleration (m/s2) Distance (m) Force (N)
-11.4
0.370
-21.5
0.340
-7.3
0.115
-28.3
0.380
-22.5
0.290
-16.7
0.675
-22.3
0.355
-19.4
0.295
-27.0
0.390
-9.9
0.320
-30.6
0.460
-37.3
0.360
-32.9
0.480
-16.7
0.310
-14.1
0.375
-28.7
0.247
-14.4
0.610
-21.3
0.170
-25.4
0.405
-19.8
0.350

-1.409
-2.657
-0.902
-3.498
-2.781
-2.064
-2.756
-2.398
-3.337
-1.223
-3.782
-4.610
-4.066
-2.064
-1.742
-3.547
-1.780
-2.632
-3.139
-2.447

DeSantis-Orjada 14

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

1.26
1.16
1.70
1.10
1.22
1.26
1.74
1.50
1.22
1.62

-37.1
-32.6
-22.5
-18.1
-28.9
-21.2
-16.0
-11.8
-22.4
-27.9

0.320
0.475
0.365
0.435
0.335
0.475
0.300
0.440
0.450
0.414

-4.585
-4.029
-2.781
-2.237
-3.572
-2.620
-1.977
-1.458
-2.768
-3.448

Table 3 shows the raw data for the collisions of low viscosity gelatin with the car

Table 4. High Viscosity Jell-O Data

High Viscosity Jell-O
Day Type Trial #
5
4
1
5
4
2
5
4
3
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
6
5
4
7
5
4
8
5
4
9
5
4
10
5
4
11
5
4
12
5
4
13
5
4
14
5
4
15
5
4
16
5
4
17
5
4
18
5
4
19
5
4
20
5
4
21

Time (s)
Acceleration (m/s2) Distance (m) Force (N)
1.36
-26.50
0.40
-3.275
1.56
-21.90
0.325
-2.707
1.20
-69.10
0.30
-8.541
1.36
-31.50
0.305
-3.893
1.36
-33.60
0.30
-4.153
1.10
-45.60
0.260
-5.636
1.56
-30.90
0.420
-3.819
1.62
-22.00
0.215
-2.719
1.24
-20.40
0.210
-2.521
1.42
-59.90
0.340
-7.404
1.22
-21.30
0.510
-2.632
1.28
-22.10
0.370
-2.731
1.10
-18.40
0.350
-2.274
1.60
-25.70
0.250
-3.176
1.30
-20.20
0.265
-2.496
1.20
-32.90
0.390
-4.066
1.42
-29.40
0.305
-3.634
1.34
-32.10
0.440
-3.967
1.38
-61.00
0.540
-7.540
1.08
-46.10
0.285
-5.698
1.27
-22.00
0.380
-2.719

DeSantis-Orjada 15

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

1.44
1.66
1.22
1.20
1.26
1.72
1.72
1.16
1.78

-62.40
-27.10
-21.30
-24.70
-42.10
-54.00
-36.40
-16.10
-18.20

0.410
0.290
0.330
0.270
0.240
0.300
0.155
0.270
0.240

Table 4 shows the high viscosity gelatin data for the experiment.

Figure 3. Formula for Calculating Force

Mass = m
Acceleration = a
F=ma

-7.713
-3.349
-2.632
-3.053
-5.204
-6.674
-4.499
-1.990
-2.249

DeSantis-Orjada 16

Observations
Table 5. 1.91cm Bubble Wrap Observations
Trial
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

1.91cm Bubble Observations

Screw Came Loose
Normal Trial
Redo, failure to launch
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Redo, Marble reversed
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Difficulty Finding Mark
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Normal Trial
Bubble Popped

DeSantis-Orjada 17

21
22

Normal Trial
Forgot to rotate bubble wrap

23

Rotated bubble wrap, car popped bubbles, car rebounded

24

Rotated bubble wrap, car popped bubbles

25

Rotated bubble wrap, car popped bubbles

26
27
28
29
30

Redo, marble failed to launch, bubble popped

Bubble did not pop
Bubble popped
Bubble popped
Bubble did not pop

Table 6. 0.95cm Bubble Wrap Observations

0.95cm Bubble Wrap
Trial
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Observations
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped, Brick Shifted
Bubbles popped, Brick Shifted, Ramp Fixed
Bubbles Popped
Trial Redone
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
No Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped

DeSantis-Orjada 18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Bubbles Popped
Switched to new sheet of bubble wrap, trial redone, marble was forgotten, no bubbles
popped, brick was off centered
No Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
No Bubbles Popped
No Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
No Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped
Bubbles Popped

Tables 5 and 6 show the observations for bubble wrap, and are highly variable
due to the materials nature to pop.
Table 7. Low Viscosity Jell-O Observations
Low Viscosity Jell-O
Trial #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Observations
Car Bounced Back
Car Broke Jell-O, Jell-O stuck to car
Car Broke Jell-O, Car stuck in Jell-O
Jell-O stuck to car
Car slightly pushed Brick
Jell-O slightly split
Car Bounced Back
Brick wasn't completely against ramp
Jell-O broke
Used half portion of Jell-O, car bounced back
Car Bounced Back
Jell-O broke
Jell-O broke
Car Bounced Back
Car Stuck to Jell-O
Car Stuck to Jell-O, Jell-O fractured
Car Stuck in Jell-O, Jell-O Broke
Jell-O fell over, Car Bounced Back
Jell-O fell over, Car Bounced Back
Car Stuck to Jell-O
Car Stuck to Jell-O, Jell-O cracked in back
Car Stuck in Jell-O, Jell-O smashed

DeSantis-Orjada 19

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Jell-O fell over, Car jumped track slightly

Car Stuck to Jell-O
Chunk of Jell-O fell off
Car Stuck to Jell-O
Jell-O Fell over
Trial redone, dot couldn't be found; Jell-O fell over and cracked
Jell-O fell over, Car Bounced Back
Car Bounced Back

Table 8. High Viscosity Jell-O Observations

High Viscosity Jell-O
Trial #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Observations
Jell-O went Everywhere
Car Stuck in Jell-O
Car Stuck in Jell-O
Recorded Video
Jell-O went Everywhere, reached Table
Car always gets stuck
Jell-O went Everywhere
Jell-O splat again
Trial redone, marble didn't launch
Jell-O went Everywhere
Jell-O went Everywhere
Cars wheels filled with Jell-O
Wiped car thoroughly
Jell-O went Everywhere
Jell-O went Everywhere
Added Jell-O
Added Jell-O
Jell-O went Everywhere
Trial Redone, Cord got caught
Jell-O went Everywhere
Jell-O went Everywhere
Cord got caught, trial redone
Jell-O went Everywhere
Added Jell-O

DeSantis-Orjada 20

25
26
27
28
29
30

Small splatter
Added Jell-O
Short splatter range large chunks
Jell-O went Everywhere
Jell-O went Everywhere
Jell-O went Everywhere

Tables 7 and 8 show the observations for gelatin. Table 7 has fairly normal
observations for the trials, while table 8s high viscosity gelatin made quite a
mess and had to be regularly changed.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
It can be assumed that the data collected is reliable due to a number of
factors. First, all data collected had a sample size of 30 or greater, to reduce the
variability of the data. Second, the trials were randomized using a random integer
function of the TI Nspire calculator, which helped to prevent bias. The third act to
reducing bias was to attempt to make every trial identical, by means of rotating
bubble wrap and swapping slabs of Jell-O to prevent an increase in the
acceleration.

DeSantis-Orjada 21

Figure 4. Box Plots of Force Absorbed by Various Materials.

Figure 4 compares the force absorbed by two varieties of both bubble
wrap (F1 and F2) and Jell-O (F3 and F4). As shown above, the large bubble
wrap (F1) had the largest spread, as well as the most outliers. It can be
reasonably inferred that the cause of this large spread was due to the nature of
bubble wrap. Because bubble wrap is made up of relatively large bubbles, the
uneven distribution of bubbles across the sheet can vary the force impacted
depending on the number of inflated bubbles hit, and if said bubbles pop.
Furthermore, the median and spread of both bubble wrap types are similar in
shape and size. However, the spread of the thick Jell-O (F3) remains compact,
possibly due to its constant uniformity. However, with the exclusion of the thick

DeSantis-Orjada 22
Jell-O trials, the medians and spread of the data seem similar. But, based on the
graph, the Jell-O trials means and medians seem to be the closest to zero.
Based on these assumptions, they appear to absorb the force by the greatest
degree, which leads to the need for a statistical test.
A two-sample t-test was used for the statistical analysis of this data for a
number of factors. First, a DOE could not be used as there are no standards
between the two distinct and discrete groups, gelatin and bubble wrap. Second,
because two distinct groups are being studied in this experiment, and because
proportions were not being compared in this experiment, a 2 sample t-test or Ztest would be the most appropriate choice. Finally, it can be determined that a 2
sample t-test is the optimal choice as the standard deviation of the population is
unknown.

The researchers checked the statistical test assumptions for a 2-Sample t

Test before performing the test. The data is collected randomly day by day: Each
day (depending on how many trials are done the day before) it is decided by the
randomization function on the TI-Nspire calculator which material would be
tested, see Appendix D. Trials were run at different times during the day
depending on the class schedule, this variation in lab conditions randomized the
results so none are influenced by lurking variables. Three 2-Sample t Tests were
performed, the two bubble wrap samples were compared, the two Jell-O samples
were compared, and the results from these tests were compared. The
researchers know the samples are independent from each other because the

DeSantis-Orjada 23
mediums are separate material categories (Jell-O is food, bubble wrap is a
packing material). Each material was tested 30 times; this value allows the
researchers to assume the populations are normally distributed. The population
means and standard deviations are not known, this is why the 2-Sample t-Test is
being applied to this data.

H O : LB = SB
H a : LB SB
Figure 5. Bubble Wrap Null and Alternative Hypotheses.
Figure 5 outlines our null hypothesis as the mean force of impact absorbed by
the large bubble wrap is statistically the same as the mean force of impact
absorbed by the small bubble wrap. Figure 5 also labels the alternative
hypothesis as the mean force of impact absorbed by the large bubble wrap is
statistically discrete from the mean force of impact absorbed by the small bubble
wrap.

DeSantis-Orjada 24
H O : TJ= tJ
H a : TJ tJ
Figure 6. Jell-O Null and Alternative Hypotheses.
Figure 6 gives the null hypothesis as equal to the mean force of impact absorbed
by the thick Jell-O is statistically similar to the mean force of impact absorbed by
the thin Jell-O. It also states the alternative hypothesis as the mean force of
impact absorbed by thick Jell-O as unequal to the mean force absorbed by the
thin Jell-O.

H O : B = J
H a: B J
Figure 7. Null and Alternative Hypotheses for bubble wrap and Jell-O.
Figure 7 shows the null and alternative hypotheses comparing both bubble wrap
and Jell-O to each other. The null hypothesis states that the mean force impact
absorbed by bubble wrap is statistically similar to the mean force impact
absorbed by Jell-O. The alternative hypothesis states that the mean force

DeSantis-Orjada 25
absorbed by bubble wrap is significantly different compared to the mean force
absorbed by Jell-O.

The t-value for the comparison between both types of bubble wrap is
-0.947.
The t-Value for the comparison between thick and thin Jell-O is 3.539.
The t-Value comparing Bubble Wrap to Jell-O is -3.3002.

The P-Value for the bubble wrap comparison is approximately 0.348,

indicating that there is no significant difference between large and small bubbles
in bubble wrap. The P-Value for the Jell-O comparison turned out to be 0.000966,
which suggests that there is a significant difference in force absorption between
thick and thin gelatin. And the P-Value comparing bubble wrap and gelatin is
0.00143, which suggests that there is a significant, albeit less drastic then
gelatins, difference in absorption of force between gelatin and bubble wrap.

In conclusion, the null hypothesis between gelatin and bubble wrap was
rejected. There is significant evidence that bubble wrap and gelatin differ in force
absorption substantially. If Ho is true, there is only a 0.143% chance of receiving
these results by chance alone.
Appendix E
Force

DeSantis-Orjada 26

10

Acceleration

m
s2

Mass = 125 g (0.125 kg)

F=M A
F=.12510

F=1.25 N
t-Statistic Calculation
x 1=2.744

s 1=0.97

n1=30

x 2=4.099

s 2=1.59

n2=30

t=

t=

x 1x 2

s 21 s 22
+
n1 n 2

2.7444.099

0.97 2 1.592
+
30
30

t=3.986

Degrees of Freedom
n1=30

n2=30

DeSantis-Orjada 27
DF=( n1 +n2 )Number of Samples
DF=( 30+ 30 )2
DF=58

T Statistic 4
PValue<0.001

DeSantis-Orjada 28
Conclusion
The purpose of this research was to determine the effectiveness of
various impact absorbing materials. The goal of the research was to reduce the
amount of force experienced by a wooden car upon impact. The impact
absorbers used were both high viscosity (thick) and low viscosity (thin) gelatin
and large-bubble and small-bubble bubble wrap, and were later compared to
each other. The sudden deceleration would be verified by an accelerometer
attached to the car, which would be utilized to calculate the force impacted. The
original hypothesis stated that the gelatin would be the greatest force absorber.
The results of the data stated that the high viscosity gelatin would reduce the
impact force by the greatest degree. The research also showed a significant
difference in force impaction between thick and thin gelatin with a p-value of
0.00097, and between gelatin and bubble wrap overall with a p-value of 0.0014.
However, there was no significant difference in performance between the large
bubble and the small-bubble bubble wrap, as the p-value comparing the two was
approximately 0.35. Based on these findings, the hypothesis was accepted.
The findings showed that a thick Jell-O is a superb impact absorber, which
could allow gelatin to be used as a compact impact absorber for vehicles or
objects unable to use traditional airbags. Gelatin is also common, inexpensive,
and easy to make. These factors may grant gelatin a role as an impact absorber
in future projects or when cost is an issue. Currently, ballistic gelatin is a specific
concentration of gelatin in water that simulates human muscle tissue for

DeSantis-Orjada 29
ammunition testing, as found on various websites, such as
GelatinInnovations.com.
Current research of these shock absorbers in the field is somewhat
limited, as few experiments have been done on the force of impact on these
materials. However, a small number of experiments have been done on gelatins
force absorbing abilities. Many of the experiments done on gelatins abilities
focus on ballistic gelatin, and its collision with steel spheres similar to bullets. The
research attempted here utilized gelatin for collisions of occupants within
vehicles, rather than with firearms.
Bubble wrap had a large amount of research done on the subject, due to
the fame of bubble wrap in collisions seems to exceed its abilities. Many of the
experiments done on bubble wrap focused on similar collisions to the research
done here, but most of those focused on vertical force than horizontal collisions.
These issues could be combined into one subject of research to efficiently utilize
bubble wrap as a force absorber.
The findings agree with common knowledge in science, as bubble wrap is
an established shock absorber for shipped products, and Jell-O is often used in
middle-school egg drop experiments. The various reasons that these materials
are excellent at absorbing force are explained by science. The thick gelatin
produced the best results with the lowest deceleration, as it had a low water
concentration, which allowed it to maintain its solid shape. This ability allowed the
force of the cars impact to be spread throughout the gelatin, conforming to the

DeSantis-Orjada 30
shape of the car. This, in addition to the higher density of the Jell-O, gave it the
ability to conform to the shape of the car, and to decrease its acceleration, thus
resisting the force from the car. The thin gelatin, however, was unable to
withstand the force of the car due to its high water content. This gelatin still
conformed to the shape of the car, but was too fluid to reduce its speed
effectively. This caused a greater force to be impacted onto the car, and made
thin gelatin an ineffective shock absorber.
The bubble wrap was less effective in resisting an impact force than the
thick gelatin due to the nature of its bubbles to pop. This trait of bubble wrap is
what makes it a great packing material, as the bubbles pop when a force is
applied to them, such as a drop. The popping of the bubbles would initially
increase the time until collision, reducing the force. However, if the sheet of
bubble wrap was not changed after a collision, the impact absorption was vastly
decreased due to the popped bubbles being unable to resist the force. If the car
travelled fast enough, then the bubbles may not be enough to resist the impact
force.
Design weaknesses in the experiment may have influenced the outcome
of the experiment. One main issue encountered with the bubble wrap was the
periodical changing of the bubble wrap. As the bubble wrap would pop upon
collision with the car, it would have to be switched often to attempt to prevent
bias. However, because the large-bubble bubble wrap popped randomly, the
bubble wrap was often popped and not replaced. This likely contributed to the
high spread of the large-bubble bubble wraps distribution, as well as the three

DeSantis-Orjada 31
outliers between both bubble wrap sets. Another issue with the experiment would
be about the thin gelatin. The thin gelatins high water content prevented it from
keeping its shape and staying together. This trait caused much of the gelatin to
erupt outwards and splatter to the surrounding area. Due to the variable amount
of gelatin being lost, the amount of gelatin added after each experiment was
likewise variable, contributing to a larger spread. Another error present in the
experiment was the wheels on the car during the gelatin experiment. Due to the
aforementioned nature of the thin gelatin to go everywhere, it began to get stuck
in the cars wheels, making it harder for them to turn. This may have produced a
lower velocity of the car, and thus a lower force than what may have been
otherwise.
Further research that could be attempted based on the results could utilize
different varieties of collisions, such as collisions with a smaller, faster particle
rather than a larger, slower object. Other types of collisions could use other
directions of force, such as a drop onto the material rather than a collision into
the material. Another area of improvement would be to solve the issues that
occurred due to the unpredictability of the gelatin, such as washing the car
between trials and clearing the ramp. Finally, a greater range of numerical values
could be used to specifically determine the best range of factors for collision
absorption.
The research could be utilized in future studies of collisions, which include
nearly every factor of life. As Newtons Third Law states, a force is a push or a
pull, and every action has an opposite and equal reaction. Gelatin benefits from

DeSantis-Orjada 32
this law due to its collagen chains, which allows it to withstand enormous
impacts. This can apply to any subject from automobile collision to armor for war
to packaging materials. These amazing abilities allow it to be used in a multitude
of subjects, and one day, may be used for serious applications in life, rather than
as a humorous mutant state of matter.

Appendix A: Pinewood Derby Construction

Materials:
Pinewood Block (17.75cm x
4.5 cm x 3.2 cm)

(4) Plastic Wheels

(4) Nail-type Axles

DeSantis-Orjada 33
Table Router or Drill Press

6 Metal File

150 Grit Sandpaper

Hammer

Procedure:
1. Using the metal file, sand the wooden block to the desired shape.
2. Smooth the edges of the wooden block with the sandpaper to finish it., see
figure 8.
3. Drill a straight line into the wooden block using a drill press or router.
4. Place the axles through the wheels.
5. Carefully hammer the axles into the predetermined slots in the wooden block.

Figure 8. Smoothing the Edges

Appendix B: Low Viscosity Jell-O

Materials:
(2) Orange Jell-O (6oz. Pkt)
(5 cups) Boiling Water
Procedure:

DeSantis-Orjada 34
1. Stir boiling water into dry gelatin mix in large bowl at least 3 min. until
completely dissolved.
2. Pour into 13x9-inch pan
3. Refrigerate at least 3 hours or until firm.
4. Cut into 4 inch strips.

Figure 9. Orange Jell-O Gelatin Box

Appendix C: High Viscosity Jell-O

Materials:
(2) Cherry Jell-O (6oz. Pkt)
(4 cups) Boiling Water

(4 cups) Ice Cold Water

DeSantis-Orjada 35
Procedure:
1. Stir boiling water into dry gelatin mix in large bowl at least 3 min. until
completely dissolved.
2. Stir in ice cold water.
3. Pour into 13x9-inch pan
4. Refrigerate at least 4 hours or until firm.

Figure 10. Cherry Jell-O Gelatin Box

Appendix D: Randomizing Trials

Materials:
TI-Nspire Calculator

DeSantis-Orjada 36
Procedure:

1. Decide which material (1.91 Bubble, 0.95 Bubble, Low Viscosity, High
Viscosity) will represent which number 1 through 4.
2. Turn on TI-Nspire
3. Open Scratchpad.
4. Press Menu, Probabillity, Random, Seed (Menu 5 4 6) and enter a
random whole number. The function has now been randomized.
5. Now, press Menu, Probability, Random, Integer (Menu 5 4 2) and
enter 1,4.
6. Press Enter until all of the days have been randomized.

Figure 11. TI-Nspire Calculator

Works Cited
Blatt, Frank J. "Kinematics." Principles of Physics. 2nd ed. N.P.: Newton: Allyn

and Bacon, 1986. 31-36. Print.

Brain, Marshall. "How Airbags Work." HowStuffWorks. Discovery, 7 Apr. 2014.
Web. 13 Apr. 2014. <http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-drivingsafety/safety-regulatorydevices/airbag.htm>.
"Crumple Zone - Crash Test." Crash Test - Crash Testing for Vehicle Safety.
CrashTest.org, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.crashtest.org/crumple-zone>.
Gavrin, Andy. Energy, Momentum, and Driving. Whats Physics Good For?.
Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, 20 June 2011. Web.
9 Apr. 2014.
<http://webphysics.iupui.edu/warmup/iupui_archive/152sp99gf_7.html.>
Gluck, Paul. "Elastic and Inelastic Collisions." The Physics Teacher 48 (2010):
158. Print.
Gunderson, P.E. Chapter 7: Linear Momentum. The Handy Physics Answer
Book (pp.29-31). Canton, MI: Visible Ink Press.

Hellman, Walter. Galilean Track in the Physics Lab. The Physics Teacher 49.8
(2011): 474-77. Print.

Kroen, Gretchen C. Silly Putty for Potholes. Science Magazine. American

Association for the Advancement of Science, 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 13 Apr.
2014. <http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2012/04/silly-puttypotholes>.
"Ordnance And Ballistic Gelatin." Gelatin Innovations. 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 25
May 2014. <http://www.gelatininnovations.com/pages/ballistic.html>.
Qiao, Pizhong, Mijia Yang, and Florin Bobaru. "Impact Mechanics and HighEnergy Absorbing Materials: Review." Journal of Aerospace Engineering
21.4 (2008): 235-48. Digital Commons@Univeristy of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Publications from the Department of Engineering Mechanics, 2013. Web.
13 Apr. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi
%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1062%26context
%3Dengineeringmechanicsfacpub>.
Shah, Vishu. Chapter 2: Mechanical Properties. Handbook of Plastic Testing and
Failure Analysis. Third Edition. Wiley-Interscience. Hoboken. 2007. (pp.
17-25).

Shapiro, Jay. "Re: Why is Jell-O a good shock absorber?" MadSciNet.

MadSciNet, 9 Apr. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/201204/1334020632.Ph.r.html>.

Zivkovic, Drazen, Dr.sc. Energy Absorbing Materials and Structures in the

Future Design of the Road Safety Equipment. Innovmat. Impressum,
2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. <http://www.innovmat.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/ENERGY-ABSORBING-MATERIALS-ANDSTRUCTURES-Bratislava.pdf>.