Research Question: How does the time period of oscillation of a metal bob on a curved track

of given radius vary with an increase in its radius of curvature?

INTRODUCTION
When I was young, all I wanted to be was a professional skateboarder, competing in the X-
Games. I was not alone in this dream; growing up in America, my friends and I would stare at
the new skateboard designs outside of shops, pour over our idols in skateboarding magazines and
visit the local skateboarding parks on weekends, where we would watch all the older
skateboarders riding around the rink and hopefully get a chance to try out our boards. The
skateboarding rink was something fascinating to me. The moment one set off from the top, he or
she could go back and forth in the rink for over ten minutes depending on how smooth the and
steep the rink was. The older riders used to have competitions on who can go on the longest
without stopping, while trying to dislodge each other. There were a few teenagers who used to
regularly teach us how to ride; the different techniques that were required to keep riding, such as
crouching when on an incline and standing up straight when not.

Even after I moved to India, my interest in skateboarding never left me. I continue to ride here
whenever I can, but certain key ideas about these oscillations around the rink intrigued me.
When the chance came, I decided to replicate these skateboarding rinks on a smaller scale, using
a curved track and a metal bob. In order to study the simple-harmonic nature of these
oscillations, and the relationship between the bob and the time period of oscillation, my research
question came out as: How does the time period of oscillation of a metal bob on a curved
track of given radius vary with an increase in its radius of curvature?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Simple-Harmonic Motion (SHM): A periodic motion of constant amplitude about an equilibrium
point, with which the acceleration of the body is proportional to the displacement from the
equilibrium and opposite to the direction of motion1. This is a Simple Harmonic System.

Torque(𝜏): The tendency of a force to cause or change the rotation of a body about a central or
principal axis2.

Angular Acceleration(∝) : It expresses the change in angular velocity that a rotating object
undergoes per unit time3.

Moment of Inertia(I): It serves as a measure of the resistance of a body towards the angular
acceleration about a given axis4.

1
"Simple Harmonic Motion | Physics". Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019,
https://www.britannica.com/science/simple-harmonic-motion. Accessed 22 May 2019.
2
"What Is Torque?". Physics.Uoguelph.Ca, 2019,
https://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/torque/Q.torque.intro.html. Accessed 24 May 2019.
3
"What Is Angular Acceleration (Rotational Acceleration)? - Definition From Whatis.Com". Whatis.Com,
2019, https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/angular-acceleration-rotational-acceleration. Accessed 22
May 2019.
4
"Definition Of MOMENT OF INERTIA". Merriam-Webster.Com, 2019, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/moment%20of%20inertia. Accessed 24 May 2019.
 P1 r (radius of curvature)

Figure 1, Representation of the curved track

Taking this as an accurate representation of the current system, let us define the radius of the bob
as r and the radius of Curvature of the track as C. As per this relationship, the only torque acting
on the metal bob at any given point of time is due to the friction (f) force acting in the direction
opposing the motion of the ball. Hence, we can state that:
• 𝜏 = 𝐼 ∝= 𝑓(𝐶 − 𝑟) (Eq 1.) 5
where 𝜏 is Torque, ∝ is angular acceleration and I represents the moment of Inertia. Torque is
defined as the force on a body multiplied with the perpendicular distance of the force vector from
the pivot. At any given point along the track, the frictional force vector is always perpendicular
to the centre of the track and therefore we multiply them directly. The frictional force is taken
from the centre of the bob, despite it only acting at the point of contact between bob and track,
and this results in the perpendicular distance being equal to (C - r).

,
Taking the moment of Inertia of a sphere to be 𝑀(𝐶 − 𝑟), 6 and relating the linear
-
acceleration of the ball to the angular acceleration by a = ∝ (C - r), we arrive at the equation
,
• 𝑓 = 𝑀𝑎 , where M is the mass of the bob (Eq 2.)
-

Now, knowing that the net force on the body is a resultant of the weight and frictional vectors
acting on the body, we can say that
• 𝐹 = 𝑀𝑎 = 𝑀𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜽 − 𝑓 (Eq 3.)
,
Replacing f with 𝑀𝑎, we then obtain the expression
-

7
• 𝑎 = 𝑔𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 (Eq 4.)
-

7
Using the small angle approximation that 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 = 𝜃 we can now conclude that 𝑎 = 𝑔𝜃 and
-

5
Maplesoft.Com, 2019,
https://www.maplesoft.com/content/EngineeringFundamentals/4/MapleDocument_30/Rotation%20MI%20
and%20Torque.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2019.
6
"Moment Of Inertia, Sphere". Hyperphysics.Phy-Astr.Gsu.Edu, 2019, http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/isph.html. Accessed 22 May 2019.
 -9
• 𝑎= 𝜃 . (Eq 5.)
7
Here we use the formula of 𝑥 = (𝐶 − 𝑟) 𝜃7 , where 𝑥 is equal to the linear displacement of the
<
bob from the equilibrium position, and replace 𝜃 with to obtain the expression
=>?

-9
• 𝑎= 𝑥 (Eq 6.)
7(=>?)

Taking the defining formula of SHM (𝑎 = −𝜔, 𝑥 8where ω is equal to the angular velocity of the
body) and equating it to the linear acceleration expression obtained earlier, we get

-9
• 𝑥 = 𝜔, 𝑥 (Eq 7.) (We can omit the negative sign, as it only serves as an indicator
7(=>?)
that the acceleration is always opposite in direction to angular velocity. We only require
the magnitudes for our calculations, hence omitting it makes calculations much simpler)

-9
After cancelling out the 𝑥 value on both sides of the equation, we find that = 𝜔, .
7(=>?)
,A 9 DA E
Using another defining equation of SHM, 𝜔 = we find that 𝜔, = and hence, we can
B BE
DA E
equate 𝑇 , to to arrive at the expression of
GE

2 7(𝐶−𝑟)
• 𝑇 =
5𝑔
4𝜋2 that simplifies to the expression

𝟐𝟖𝝅𝟐
• 𝑻𝟐 = (𝑪 − 𝒓) (Eq 8.)
𝟓𝒈

From this simplified expression, I developed my hypothesis along the lines of a linear
>,SA E
relationship between 𝑇 , and r, related by a gradient of . Because of this negative gradient,
-9
I hypothesized that the value of T2 would decrease as the radius of the bob increased in a linear
fashion, and from this understanding, the value of the Time Period of oscillation of the metal
bob on the curved track decreases as the radius of the bob increases in a non-linear
manner.

7
"S= R Θ Formula And Equation For The Central Angle In Radian Measure". Mathwarehouse.Com,
2019, https://www.mathwarehouse.com/trigonometry/radians/s=r-theta-formula-equation.php. Accessed
21 May 2019.
8
"Simple Harmonic Motion - Maths A-Level Revision". Revisionmaths.Com, 2019,
https://revisionmaths.com/advanced-level-maths-revision/mechanics/simple-harmonic-motion. Accessed
23 May 2019.
9
Holzner, Steven. Physics For Dummies. Wiley, 2006, p. 201. Accessed 23 May 2019
Variables

Independent Variable- Radius of metal bob: The smallest radius was taken as 0.63cm and the
largest as 2.52 cm. The diameter of the bob was measured using a Vernier caliper and then
halved to obtain the radius.

Dependent Variable- Time Period of oscillation: The time taken for 10 oscillations was
recorded with a stopwatch and then divided by ten to obtain the Time Period of 1 oscillation,
measured in seconds.

Control Variables:
Variable Reason for controlling Method of controlling

Steel Bowl Frictional coefficient changes The exact same bowl was used
based on the type of bowl. The for all trials
Radius of Curvature (C) can
also change from bowl to bowl.
Material of Metal Bobs Frictional Constant varies based The bobs used were all from the
on the material of the bobs. The same set along with being
Moment of Inertia also depends extremely smooth
on the shape of the bob. Both The metal bobs were all of the
forces affect the bob’s same shape as well: perfectly
oscillation along the curve. spherical

Temperature and Can affect the size of the bob The entire experiment was
Gravitational field strength of and its time period of conducted in the same room
given place oscillation

Method

Apparatus: Quantity

Stopwatch(±0.01s) X1

Metal Bowl (Large) X1

Metal Bobs X8 (0.63cm, 0.78cm, 0.95cm, 1.18cm,

1.28cm, 1.38cm, 2.23cm, 2.52cm)

Vernier Calipers (± 0.005cm)

 Setup (such that Figure 1. was replicated):

• The metal bowl was stuck to the surface of the table using double sided tape. Care
was taken to make sure that the bowl was perfectly horizontal/level with the
surface. As a result
• The bob’s diameter was first measured using a Vernier Caliper and recorded.
• The bob was placed on the incline towards the edge of the bowl (at point P1 in
Figure 1.) so that it can freely oscillate.

The smallest ball taken had a diameter of 0.63 centimeters, as anything smaller would
had its oscillations significantly affected by the friction between the bob and the steel
bowl. The largest bob taken had a diameter of 2.52 cm, as anything bigger would have
been to large to steadily oscillate in the bowl.
Procedure:

• The bob was then let go. The bowl was held steady while the bob was oscillating.
• After one oscillation was completed (to-and-fro motion of the bob, when it reaches
maximum displacement and returns back to the starting position), the stopwatch
was immediately started.
• Ten oscillations after the stopwatch was started, the stopwatch was stopped.
precisely when the bob reached its starting displacement position for the tenth time
and the time taken for these ten oscillations was recorded.
• The above steps (excluding the diameter-measurement) was repeated nine more
times and the final times were recorded for all.
• The entire experiment above was then repeated for each bob and the results were
recorded.

Safety Precautions:

There were no major safety hazards involved with this experiment, as well as no environmental
or ethical concerns. Standard Laboratory etiquette and procedure was followed, along with the
normal safety precautions, so as to not disturb other researchers.

DATA COLLECTION AND PROCESSING

Qualitative Raw Data: A distinctive ‘rolling’ noise was heard as the bob oscillated to and fro
about the bowl. It was also noted that around the eighth oscillation, most of the bobs would not
travel
 Processed Data Tables
Table 1. Raw Data collevted from apparatus

Diameter/(±0.005cm) T1/(±0.01)s T2/(±0.01)s T3/(±0.01)s T4/(±0.01)s T5/(±0.01)s T6/(±0.01)s T7/(±0.01)s

2.23 13.78 13.62 14.22 13.5 13.66 13.75 13.59
1.38 13.68 13.48 13.58 13.72 13.61 13.54 14.06
1.18 13.51 13.57 13.46 13.3 13.4 13.33 13.54
2.52 12.06 11.83 12.06 12.2 11.97 11.87 12.07
0.95 13.61 13.39 13.21 13.4 13.44 13.57 13.21
0.63 15.01 14.68 13.65 14 15.32 14.16 14.4
0.78 14.42 14.32 14.15 14.08 14.34 14.92 14.41
1.28 13.18 13.88 13.36 13.76 13.48 13.7 13.88

Time Period/s

Radius/m T1/(±0.001)s T2/(±0.001)s T3/(±0.001)s T4/(±0.001)s T5/(±0.001)s T6/(±0.001)s T7/(±0.001)s

0.01115 1.378 1.362 1.422 1.350 1.366 1.375 1.359
0.00690 1.368 1.348 1.358 1.372 1.361 1.354 1.406
0.00590 1.351 1.357 1.346 1.330 1.340 1.333 1.354
0.01260 1.206 1.183 1.206 1.220 1.197 1.187 1.207
0.00475 1.361 1.339 1.321 1.340 1.344 1.357 1.321
0.00315 1.501 1.468 1.365 1.400 1.532 1.416 1.440
0.00390 1.442 1.432 1.415 1.408 1.434 1.492 1.441
0.00640 1.318 1.388 1.336 1.376 1.348 1.370 1.388
Table 2. Initial Processed Data Table

To obtain the radius of the bob in meters, the diameter was first divided by two and then by
hundred. Taking one reading as an example:

• 2.23/2 = 1.115
• 1.115/100 = 0.0115m

The Time period of oscillation for each trial was obtained by dividing the original Time taken by
ten.
• 13.78/10 = 1.378s
ANALYSIS:

Avg Time
Radius/m Uncertainty/±s T2/s2 Uncertainty/±s2
Period./s
0.01115 1.373 0.036 1.886 0.099
0.0069 1.367 0.029 1.868 0.079
0.0059 1.344 0.013 1.808 0.036
0.01260 1.201 0.019 1.442 0.045
0.00475 1.341 0.02 1.797 0.054
0.00315 1.458 0.084 2.126 0.244
0.0039 1.432 0.017 2.052 0.049
0.0064 1.361 0.035 1.851 0.095
Table 3. Processed Data Table showing Average Time Period

The average Time Period was calculated by taking the average of all the Time periods across the
trials for the same bob. The uncertainty was calculated using a simple, substitute formula of
TU<>VWX
. As an example for the 2.23cm radius ball:
,

Y.D,,>Y.[-\
• = (±0.036) 𝑐𝑚
,

• In order to calculate T2, we raise the corresponding T value to the power 2 (1.3732 =
1.886). To determine the uncertainty of this value, we simply do 2(Avg)(ΔT), where we
multiply 2 into the product of the Average Time period and its uncertainty

• 2(1.373)( 0.036) = (±0.099)s

A graph of T2 against radius was plotted and the following results obtained.
 Time Period Graph

2.500

2.000
T2/s2

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Radius/m
Graph 1. Graph of the data obtained from trials.

Graph as per formula

1.42

1.41

1.4
T2/s2

1.39

1.38

1.37

1.36
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
r/m

Graph 2. Graph as per the formula presented in our hypothesis. Used as a comparison to the
data obtained through trials.

For this graph, the radius of curvature of the bowl used needed to be calculated. This was done
by placing the bowl perpendicular to a piece of paper and using a pencil to draw out the curve of
the bottom of the bowl. This is shown below.
After this, the height of the curve and the width of the chord between the two end points of the
c eE
curve were measured using a standard ruler and inputted into the equation 𝐶 = + , where H
, Sc
represents the height of the curve and W stands for the length of the chord. These readings were
also converted to metre units before being inputted into this formula.

As we can see here, both graphs represent a linear relationship between the radius and the square
of the time period, such that as the radius of the bob increases, the time period squared decreases.
Despite this similarity, it is clear, however, that there is a large difference between the two
graphs shown above.

The graph of the data has a slope that is much less steep compared to that of the formula. In
order to effectively gauge and compare the two, I calculated the average gradient of my data
TU< f?UgWhXijTWX f?UgWhXi
points using the formula , replicating the same points on an identical
,
graph.

Time Period Graph

2.500

2.000

1.500
T2/s2

1.000

0.500

0.000
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Radius/m

Graph 3, represents the maximum and minimum gradients. The point at 0.01115 metres is
considered as an ANOMALY and was omitted from calculations, due to it digressing far from the
area within the trendlines
k,>kY
Gradient calculations were preformed using the standard calculations of for both maximum
<,><Y
and minimum gradients. The points taken were the two farthest on the graph ( or the two
extremes), after the uncertainty was either added or subtracted to each based on the type of
gradient calculated. For the maximum gradient, the corresponding uncertainty was added to the y
value of the leftmost point and subtracted from the rightmost point’s y value. The opposite was
followed for minimum gradient.

Maximum Gradient

[(2.126+0.244) - (1.442-0.045)] / (0.00315 – 0.0126) = -105.1 = -103

Minimum Gradient

[(2.126-0.244) - (1.442+0.045)] / (0.00315 – 0.0126) = -41.79 = -41.8

Average Gradient:

= (Max Gradient + Minimum Gradient)/2

= (-103 + -41.8)/2 = -72.4 s2m-1

CONCLUSION AND EVALUATION

While the curve obtained does not exactly match up with that of the Eq 8. it can be concluded
that a linear relationship exists between the square of the time period and the radius of the metal
bob. Hence, we can say that the result does agree with the hypothesis. Upon observation from the
graph of the data in Fig 1, we see that there is a large amount of variation away from the line of
best fit drawn on first glance, and that data points 3, 4, 5, 6 are actually increasing linearly rather
than decreasing. This can be explained by taking the context of their radii into account, in that
they are all extremely close together and hence, indicative of a large amount of error due to the
lack of sufficient range.

The difference between the average gradient and the theory-based gradient can be explained by a
couple of inconsistencies in the experiment, or what can be summed up as the weaknesses of the
experiment, and are as follows.

1. While care was taken with regards to the metal bob (all bobs from the same set,
extremely smooth, etc.), it is impossible to effectively ensure that every
parameter with respect to every ball was the exact same except for its radius.
Certain bobs may have had a small number of scratches and/or different grooves
inscribed in them that may be invisible to the naked eye. These would have
effected the frictional constant between the bob and the steel bowl, making it
different for each data set. Not all bobs may have been perfectly spherical
either.
2. The bowl may not have been perfectly smooth and uniform throughout its
surface. Certain patches of the bowl would have been slightly scratched and
dented, while others may have had some grooves. These variables would have
definitely affected the frictional constant. The best available curved surface was
 taken, but inconsistencies and errors still popped up and could not have been
completely eliminated
3. Since the location where the experiment was conducted, and the climatic
conditions over the period time in which the experiment was being done did not
change very much, it was assumed that the temperature remained constant
throughout the experiment. However, it is more than likely that the temperature
varied slightly from day to day. This could have resulted in the bobs having
slightly expanded or contracted on a day to day basis.
4. The radius of curvature may have been measured incorrectly as the method used
can be considered crude and slightly flawed. The pencil may have not been
straight when tracing and the bowl may not have been perfectly horizontal.
5. The surface on which the bowl was stuck to may not have been flat, i.e it could
have been slight inclined. It was also difficult to ensure that the bowl was stuck
perfectly horizontal to the surface
6. Despite holding the bowl, we can not be certain that the bowl did not move
throughout at all throughout each trial. If the bowl did move, it would have
skewed the oscillations of the bob.
7. The concept of leaving the ball at the curved edge of the bowl is also quite
subjective and hence, can vary from trial to trial, affecting the time period

Methods of Improvement:

While this experiment was indeed the best that could have been done with the apparatus
available, there were ways that it could have been improved, either in procedure or with
apparatus. One significant area of improvement is with regards to measuring the radius of
curvature of the bowl used. The method of placing the bowl sideways and using a pencil to trace
out the arc subtended from the centre is quite crude, subjective and inaccurate. Instead a device
known as a Spherometer can be used. This device is often used in industries such as Spherical
Mirror manufacturing.

Another area of improvement comes about in the curved surface used. A steel bowl is not the
most ideal as unless it is unused, there will be a few scratches and some grooves indented, no
matter how smooth it is. Ideally, a curved flexible track should have been used, with which the
degree of curvature can be manually set. This track also should be made of a material smooth
enough such that it will allow the ball to oscillate to and fro.

Also, a larger number of trials should have been taken, as compared to the seven trials I took.
Unfortunately, due to certain time constraints that come with working in a shared lab with others,
I had to make certain adjustments. With more number of trials, the amount of random error
would have been reduced. On top of this, the experiment should have been completed on the
same day to reduce the effect of temperature on the results.

The main strength of this experiment lies in its simplicity and the fact that it can be conducted
anywhere. Without any expensive items or apparatus needed, a definite conclusion can be
reached for a seemingly complex relationship that can be applied in the real world.
By doing recording 10 oscillations, the amount of error due to reaction time was significantly
reduced, as more oscillations increases the time for each trial and hence, improves our accuracy
and precision. A total number of 10 trials were taken for each ball, before averaging the values
and calculating the uncertainty. By taking ten trials, the random error of the experiment was
further reduced to arrive at more precise readings.

Extensions of the Investigation

One key observation that was made during the experiment was how the bob was only able to
oscillate for a short period of time. Because of this, only around ten to twelve oscillations were
possible for each trial. This effect is known as damping, when the amplitude of oscillation
decreases as the number of oscillations of the object increases. This phenomenon has been well
documented and studied for more traditional scenarios involving SHM (e.g. pendulum motion),
but not as much for curved, oscillatory motion. An investigation into the damping of the bob’s
oscillation on a curved track will be highly fruitful and intriguing, potentially yielding defining
results.

Another area to look into could be investigating the Time period of oscillation on this track for
objects with other shapes, an example being cylinder. The theoretical formula will remain the
same but certain differences might arise between the two data sets when experimenting. Possible
relationships between shapes and the Time Period of oscillation could be found as well.

Rather than letting the bob oscillate in a simple 2 dimensional manner (in a straight line from
looking above), an investigation can be conducted into the oscillation of the bob around the bowl
(a circle as seen from above (birds eye view). The bob could be made to move around the bowl
at a certain incline and the number of oscillations needed for the bob to reach the center could be
recorded. The time period of this oscillation could be measured as well, in an attempt to prove
whether this type of motion is SHM. The variations on an investigation in this topic are
numerous, all of which would yield defining and interesting results.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
• "Simple Harmonic Motion | Physics". Encyclopedia Britannica, 2019,
https://www.britannica.com/science/simple-harmonic-motion. Accessed 22 May 2019.

• "What Is Torque?". Physics.Uoguelph.Ca, 2019,

https://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/torque/Q.torque.intro.html. Accessed 24 May 2019.

• "What Is Angular Acceleration (Rotational Acceleration)? - Definition From

Whatis.Com". Whatis.Com, 2019, https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/angular-acceleration-
rotational-acceleration. Accessed 22 May 2019.

• "Definition Of MOMENT OF INERTIA". Merriam-Webster.Com, 2019, https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/moment%20of%20inertia. Accessed 24 May 2019.
• Maplesoft.Com, 2019,
https://www.maplesoft.com/content/EngineeringFundamentals/4/MapleDocument_30/Rotation%2
0MI%20and%20Torque.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2019.

• "Moment Of Inertia, Sphere". Hyperphysics.Phy-Astr.Gsu.Edu, 2019, http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/isph.html. Accessed 22 May 2019.

• "F = Ma – Physics World". Physics World, 2019, https://physicsworld.com/a/f-ma/. Accessed 20

May 2019.

• "S= R Θ Formula And Equation For The Central Angle In Radian

Measure". Mathwarehouse.Com, 2019,
https://www.mathwarehouse.com/trigonometry/radians/s=r-theta-formula-equation.php. Accessed
21 May 2019.

• "Simple Harmonic Motion - Maths A-Level Revision". Revisionmaths.Com, 2019,

https://revisionmaths.com/advanced-level-maths-revision/mechanics/simple-harmonic-motion.
Accessed 23 May 2019.

• Holzner, Steven. Physics For Dummies. Wiley, 2006