PIRATE SHIP

EXAMPLE REPORT WRITE UP

Title …Pirate Ship investigation
Aim … To find the relationship between the length of a pendulum and its
period

Independent variable – the length of the pendulum. I will use lengths of 0.200, 0.400, 0.600, 0.800, 1.000 and
1.200m.
Dependent variable – the period of the pendulum (the time to swing from one side to the other and back again)
(MUST HAVE Independent and dependent variable for Achieved)

Control variables (MUST HAVE for Merit/Excellence)

1. I will measure the length of the pendulum the same way: from the bottom of the cork that the string is
threaded through, to the centre of mass of the pendulum bob.
2. Use the same ruler all measurements.
3. Release the pendulum from the same angle each time (approximately 15˚)
4. Release the pendulum so that the it swings perpendicular to the slit in the cork that is holding the string.
Accuracy improvement (MUST HAVE for Merit/Excellence)
1. I will time 10 oscillations and divide by 10 to get the time for one period. This will reduce the effect of
random variations in my times.
2. I will repeat the timing measurement for each length 5 times and take the average.
3. I will reduce parallax error when measuring length by making sure I am viewing the scale at 90˚, and
making sure the ruler is close to the strings.
Method
1. Set up the equipment as shown in the diagram.
2. Adjust the length of the string to 0.200m
3. Hold the pendulum bob to the side, deflecting it by around 15˚ and let go
4. Time 10 oscillations and record the time
5. Repeat step 5 until 5 times are recorded.
6. Repeat steps 2 to 6 for lengths of 0.400, 0.600, 0.800, 1.000 and 1.200m.
7. Process results to enable a relationship to be worked out.
Clamp
C lam p

Retort stand
LengthL
Heavymasstoprevent
thewoodfrommoving
R uler

B ench
Bench

Mass
 Must have T uncertainty and
Must have at least one
error bars for Merit/Excellence
uncertainty for Achieved
Results
Time for
Length of Absolute Average Range Absolute one Absolute
string, L uncertainty for 10T for 10T uncertainty period T uncertainty
(m) for L (m) Times for 10T (s) (s) (s) for 10T (s) for T (s)
0.200 ±0.001 9.1 9.3 8.9 9.0 9.1 9.1 0.4 0.2 0.91 0.02
0.400 ±0.001 12.8 12.4 12.7 12.5 12.2 12.5 0.6 0.3 1.25 0.03
0.600 ±0.001 14.6 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.6 0.3 0.15 1.46 0.01
0.800 ±0.001 17.8 18.1 18.0 17.9 17.9 17.9 0.3 0.15 1.79 0.02
1.000 ±0.001 20.0 20.3 20.1 19.8 20.0 20.0 0.5 0.25 2.00 0.03
1.200 ±0.001 21.7 21.6 21.4 21.8 21.5 21.6 0.4 0.2 2.16 0.02

Processing
The unprocessed data above would not give a straight line graph.

L
As T = 2π T is proportional to √ L , therefore I will need to graph T against √ L to get a straight line
g

graph and work out the equation.

Absolute % uncertainty and processing

Length of strings, L uncertainty L % √L % √L Abs optional for Merit/Excellence
(m) for L (m) Unc √L Unc Unc (as long as you have correct
0.200 ±0.001 0.50% 0.447 0.25% 0.001 Time uncertainty and error
0.400 ±0.001 0.25% 0.632 0.13% 0.0008
bars on your graph)
0.600 ±0.001 0.17% 0.775 0.08% 0.0006
0.800 ±0.001 0.13% 0.894 0.06% 0.0006
1.000 ±0.001 0.10% 1.000 0.05% 0.0005
1.200 ±0.001 0.08% 1.095 0.04% 0.0005

Graph on the next page

The absolute uncertainty values for √L are too small to plot on the scale that I have used on my graph

Gradient of best fit line (MUST HAVE for Achieved)

Rise = 2.25s
Run = 1.14 √m
Gradient = 2.25/1.14 = 1.974 (s/√m)

Gradient of error line (MUST HAVE for Merit/Excellence)

Rise = 2.25s
Run = 1.06 √m
Gradient = 2.25/1.06 = 2.123 (s/√m)

Difference between gradient of best and error line

Δgradient = 2.123 – 1.974 = 0.149 = 0.1 (1sf)
Gradient with uncertainty = 2.0 ±0.1 (s/√m) (MUST HAVE for Merit/Excellence)

2
 Period v square root of length

2.50
Error line
MUST HAVE
for Achieved

Best fit line

MUST
Error bars on each data
2.00 HAVE for
point MUST HAVE for
Merit/Excellence (can Achieved
use largest Time
uncertainty for all Time
error bars)

1.50
Period (s)

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
Square root length (√m)

3
Conclusion - For achieved level
The relationship is stated and recognition that the experimental relationship is consistent with the theoretical
relationship.

In conclusion the period of the pendulum is related to the length of the pendulum by
T = 2.0 √ L

COMPARING, Method 1

L
Comparing my equation T = 2.0 √ L to the given equation T = 2π I can see that my gradient value, 2.0,
g
2π 2π
should be equal to and =2.01, which shows that my relationship is consistent with the theory.
g 9.8

COMPARING, Method 2

L
Comparing my equation T = 2.0 √ L to the given equation T = 2π I can see that my gradient value, 2.0,
g
2π
should be equal to .
g
2
2π  2π 
Rearranging 2.0 = gives g=  = 9.87 , which shows that my relationship is consistent with
g  2.0 
the theory as my value for g of 9.87 is close to the theory of g=9.8.

4
Conclusion - For Merit and Excellence level
The relationship is stated and an appropriate comparison is made between the theoretical value of the
gradient and the equivalent experimental value. (Accept a comparison between a constant calculated from the
gradient and a theoretical value.) The comparison includes a consideration of uncertainties.

In conclusion the period of the pendulum is related to the length of the pendulum by
T = (2.0 ±0.1) √ L
The uncertainty in the gradient is due to the uncertainties that I accounted for during the experiment and
processing of the data.
COMPARING, Method 1

L
Comparing my equation T = (2.0 ±0.1) √ L to the given equation T = 2π I can see that my gradient
g
2π
value, 2.0 ±0.1, is equal to
g

2π 2π
and =2.01
g 9.8
This shows that although the value of my best fit line, 2.0, is slightly lower than the theoretical value for the
gradient of 2.01, it is well within my range of values for the gradient which is 1.9 to 2.1. My values are between
(1.9/2.01)x100=95% and (2.1/2.01)x100=104% of the theoretical value.

COMPARING, Method 2

L
Comparing my equation T = (2.0 ±0.1) √ L to the given equation T = 2π I can see that my gradient
g
2π
value, 2.0 ±0.1, is equal to
g

2
2π  2π 
So 2.0 = g=  = 9.87
g  2.0 
Maximum value of gradient = 2.1
2
2π  2π 
So 2.1 = g=  = 8.95
g  2.1 
Minimum value of gradient = 1.9
2
2π  2π 
So 1.9 = g =   = 10.94
g  1.9 
This shows that although the value of g given by my best fit line, 9.87, is higher than the theoretical value of
g=9.81, it is well within my range of values which is 8.95 to 10.94. My values are between (8.95/9.8)x100=91%
and (10.94/9.8)x100=112% of the theoretical value.

5
Discussion
For Excellence - marking schedule:
The discussion shows evidence that the student has sufficient depth of understanding of the experimental process
to be able address critical issues such as:
1. other variable(s) that could have changed and significantly affected the results, and how they could have
changed the results. (Note that it is not enough to just state the results would be inaccurate.)
2. the limitations to the theory’s applicability both in the practical situation and/or at extreme values of the
independent variable.
3. any unexpected outcomes of the processing of the results and a suggestion of how they could have been
caused and the effect they had on the validity of the conclusion. (Note that the aspects discussed should not
be what would normally be considered as mistakes in experimental procedure – such as failing to fix a wobbly
retort stand - nor should they relate to just standard experimental procedure.)
The evidence may be shown in two statements that show good understanding or at least three (depending on the
depth of the understanding shown) statements that each show some understanding. The discussion points should
be well reasoned and include clear and logical links between what has happened and the effect it has had on
the results/conclusion.

SEE NEXT PAGE FOR EXAMPLES

T
If the line is too
steep then g is too
small g<9.81

Line with gradient that

gives g=9.81

If the line is
too shallow
then g is too
big g>9.81

√L

6
Discussion - examples

1. Control variables that could have affected my experiment

One of my control variables was making sure that I always measured the length to the same position on the
pendulum bob (i.e. to the centre of mass). If I did not do this, for example if I measured to the top of the pendulum
bob, the actual length of the pendulum would have been longer than what I measured and the time periods would
have been longer. EXTRA: This would affect the gradient of my graph by making it steeper than it should have
-2
been. As the gradient is equal to 2π/√g this would have given a value of g smaller than 9.81 ms .

2 a. Limitations of the model compared to real life

The formula would not apply in real life as the suspensions would be two steel beams, not string. Because the steel
beams have more mass, this would affect the position of the centre of mass, making it much higher up than my
model. This would make the effective length in the real life situation shorter than the length to the ships centre of
mass, making its period shorter.

2 b. Limitations of the minimum and maximum values of the independent variable

The minimum value for which this relationship will apply is limited by the size of the pendulum bob. The fishing
sinker that I used is approximately 3.5cm long, including the eyelet used to attach the string, so the pendulum
length could not be adjusted to lengths shorter than that.

3. Unexpected outcomes of the processing/results (i.e. reasons why your gradient / value for g could be
different to the theory, but NOT mistakes)
As the mass swung back and forth it also spun. The spinning caused the string to untwist, increasing the length of
L. The increased length would cause the time period to be greater, increasing the value of the intercept.

I intended to use parallax error reduction, but found it difficult to hold the ruler in place when measuring the longer
lengths and ended up looking down at the scale from above, leading to the length of the pendulum being longer
than intended. This would have made the longer lengths too long, and given periods that were too long.
EXTRA: This would affect the gradient of my graph by making it steeper than it should have been. As the gradient
-2
is equal to 2π/√g this would have given a value of g smaller than 9.81 ms .

When I adjusted the length of the pendulum I wound it around the

clamp. I noticed that for part of the swing the string was longer as it
swung away from the clamp and shorter when the string was up
against the clamp. As I measured from the top of the clamp this would
have made the lengths too short for part of the swing and given times
that were shorter than they should have been.
EXTRA: This would affect the gradient of my graph by making it
shallower than it should have been. As the gradient is equal to 2π/√g
-2
this would have given a value of g greater than 9.81 ms .

WEAK EXCELLENCE With my graph there is an intercept at T = -0.2 s, implying that the period is negative, which
cannot happen. A possible reason for this is the way I timed the pendulum. I judged the end of the 10 oscillations
by eye, but if I anticipated the end point too early, my times would be too short, and the periods would be shorter
than they should be, causing the negative intercept.

CANNOT INCLUDE MISTAKES IN THIS SECTION - e.g. I accidentally timed 9 oscillations instead of 10, or I
accidentally measured 99cm instead of 100cm.