Lin Ashley, 2 LIIB

Harmonic motion of a spring and an object attached to a pendulum

Goals:

This experience is divided in two parts:

 First part: pendulum
o Prove that the period doesn’t depend on the mass attached to the pendulum


o Provide the experimental proof of the formulaω= g

Second part: spring

√ l

o Compare the experimental and the theoretical graphs

o Provide the experimental proof of the formula ω= k

√ m

Introduction:

1. In physics, simple harmonic motion is linear and periodic: this means that after a certain
amount of time the motion of the object considered will repeat itself exactly as it did
previously. In the lab we observed this in two different ways: first using a pendulum and then
using a spring.
o Generally, in the case of the pendulum only oscillations smaller than 10° are
considered harmonic motion, since the trajectory of the object can be simplified to
obtain a straight line. If this criterion is respected, then the formula ω=
applied. (see image 1)
√ g can be
l

o Instead, in springs we can always observe harmonic motion, as we see the projection

of uniform circular motion on the x-axis. This means that the formula ω=
always be applied. (see image 2)
√ k can
m

 It’s important to note that for the springs we saw in the lab there was damped
harmonic motion, that is to say that the amplitude decreased over time. While
simple harmonic motion can be studied theoretically, it does not apply to
reality, since there are always some external forces which act on the body so
that energy cannot be conserved. (e.g. friction with air and other surfaces)
2. In the first part of the experience, we wanted to prove the formula ω=
√ g where ω is the
l
angular velocity, g is the acceleration due to gravity and l is the length considered from the
2π
top of the string to the barycentre of the object. By combining this with T = (where T is
ω
the period and ω is the angular velocity) we can obtain:
o 2π
T
=
g
√
l
o ω= g
√l
o 2π = g
T
4π g2
√
l
o =
T2 l
 2
o 2 4π
T = ∙l
g

√
2
g is just like proving 2 4 π
So in the end, proving ω= T = ∙l
l g
3. In the second part of the experience, we wanted to prove the formula ω=
√ k where ω is the
m
angular velocity, k is the elastic constant and m is the mass of the object considered. This
formula can be obtained from Hooke’s Law: F el=∆ x ∙ k (where F el is the elastic force, ∆ x
is the elongation of the spring and k is the elastic constant).
o F el=∆ x ∙ k
o F el=ma (the elastic force is equal to the weight since there is equilibrium)
o F el ,max =ma max
o K R=mω2 R (where R ¿ ∆ x ) (see image 3)

2π
o ω=
√ k
m
4. ω = , where ω is the angular velocity and T is the time considered
T
5. To find out the percent error when we don’t have a theoretical value but only two measured
measure1−measure 2
values, we use the formula ∙100
average
6. Instead, when we do have a theoretical value, then to find out the percent error we use
theoretical−measured
∙100
theoretical
7. Error bars represent the area in a graph where the real value of the data collected can be
found, and in our case, we used standard deviation. When measuring, there can be many
types of mistakes: for instance, an error in the product of two quantities. In order to find out
this error called Δ C, we have to understand this process:
o First of all, we know that the two measured quantities are Ā± ΔA and B̅ ± ΔB
o C̄ = Ā∙ B̅
ΔA ΔB
o Δ C = C̄ ( + )
Ā B̅
ΔT
8. If we call Δ (T2) our standard deviation, then: Δ (T2) = T2 (2 ∙ ) = 2T∙ ΔT
T

e
1. Pendulum 2. UCM seen from the x axis 3. Elongation of the spring

Materials:

1. Pendulum:
 a. For the apparatus:
i. Clamps
ii. Tripod stand
iii. Iron rod
iv. Smaller rod
v. Strings of different lengths
vi. Goniometer
b. Chronometers (analogic and digital)
c. Lab scale
d. Ruler
e. Lab weights (10g, 25g, 50g)
2. Spring:
a. For the first apparatus:
i. Clamps
ii. Tripod stand
iii. Iron rod
iv. Smaller rod
v. Dynamometer
vi. Springs
vii. Lab weights (20g, 50g)
b. For the second apparatus:
i. Springs
ii. PASCO wireless smart carts (with hook and magnet)
iii. PASCO smart cart metal track
iv. PASCO angle indicator (for the metal track)

Procedure:

Procedure for the first part of the pendulum experience

1. First of all, we will need to set up the materials needed to complete this experience:
a. Fix the metal rod in a vertical position using the tripod stand and make sure it won’t
fall
b. Use the clamps to fix the shorter rod in a horizontal position on the side of the metal
rod
c. At the end of the shorter rod attach a goniometer: this will allow you to make sure the
angle of the oscillations is be smaller than 10°
d. At that same end, tie a string with a knot where the lab weights will be hung (see
image 4)
2. Choose one of the lab weights, measure its mass, hang it on the knot of the string and
measure the final length
a. Be careful, the length might change for each case even though you use the same
string: it is the distance from one end of the string to the barycentre of the object
hung, so if the object changes, the position of its barycentre also changes.
3. Now, we need to find out the period (time needed to complete one full circle of the object’s
motion) of the pendulum. Gently push the lab weight and measure the time needed for it to do
5 oscillations, then divide this value by 5. In this way, measurements become easier and
more precise.
a. Note that the angle formed during the oscillations should be smaller than 10°,
otherwise it won’t be considered harmonic motion
b. Repeat this step at least 10 times
4. Repeat the process for each of the three lab weights and record the data in a table: they will be
needed later on to make some observations
 4. apparatus

Procedure for the second part of the pendulum experience

1. Set up the materials repeating step 1 of the first part of the pendulum experience
2. After choosing a string and a weight to attach to it, measure the total length
a. Be careful, the length is the distance from one end of the string to the barycentre of
the object hung
3. Now, we need to find out the period (time needed to complete one full circle of the object’s
motion) of the pendulum. Gently push the lab weight and measure the time needed for it to do
5 oscillations, then divide this value by 5. In this way, measurements become easier and
more precise.
a. Note that the angle formed during the oscillations should be smaller than 10°,
otherwise it won’t be considered harmonic motion
b. Repeat this step at least 20 times
4. Repeat the process for each of the lengths without changing the mass used. Make sure to
record the data in a table: they will be needed to create an Excel l-t2 graph
5. Now that we’ve collected all the data, we can observe the relation between the length and
time at the power of two by building an Excel l-t2 graph
a. Create a new excel file
b. Write the data collected for the different lengths in two columns: in the first one,
insert the values of ‘l’ in meters, while in the second one write the values of ‘t 2’ in
seconds
c. Now, select the first column (l) and click on the option ‘insert’ and then choose
‘scatter graph’: this column now contains the data shown on the y axis
d. Click on ‘chart design’ and select the data for the ‘x axis’: this time, select the column
of ‘t2’
e. Name the graph and its axis to avoid confusion
f. Click on the option ‘display equation on chart’ to show the equation of the graph
g. Lastly, we need to add the error bars on the graph: these bars represent the area where
the real value of the measure can be found
i. Click on the option ‘chart design’ and then ‘add chart element’
ii. Now, pick the option ‘error bars’ and then ‘standard error’
iii. To adjust the length of the error bar, click on the option ‘format error bars’
g
6. Calculate the theoretical value of m using the formula m = 2
4π
7. Calculate the percent error between the theoretical and the experimental values of m using
theoretical−measured
the formula ∙100
theoretical
Procedure for the first part of the spring experience (note that this part is directly connected to the
next one)
1. First of all, we need to set up the materials needed to complete this experience:
a. Fix the metal rod in a vertical position using the tripod stand and make sure it won’t
fall
b. Use the clamps to fix the shorter rod in a horizontal position on the side of the metal
rod
c. Attach a spring to the shorter rod
2. Measure the initial length of the spring and then, after hanging a lab weight on it, measure its
final length
3. Also take note of the weight of the lab weight using a dynamometer, since it will later be
useful to calculate the theoretical elastic constant with the formula F el=∆ x ∙ k where F el=¿
P
4. Use this same spring or other identical ones in the next part of the experience

Procedure for the second part of the spring experience

1. In this part of the experience, we want to observe the behaviour of a smart cart attached to a
spring on an inclined or a horizontal plane. To do this, we need to first install the app
SPARKvue, which records the data obtained from analysing the behaviour of the cart and
then automatically places it inside of s-t, v-t and a-t charts.
a. In order for the app to record the information of the cart, we’ll need to turn on our
device’s Bluetooth and, from inside of the app, connect the right cart to it
2. For the inclined plane: (see image 5 + video 1)
a. secure one end of the smart cart metal track on an elevated surface and while the
other one rests on the ground or a lower surface
b. Then, attach a spring (identical to the one of the first experience) on the upper end of
the track, attach the wireless smart cart to the spring and release it
c. The angle formed between the metal track and the ground can be seen on the angle
indicator on the lower end of the track
3. For the horizontal plane: (see image 6 + video 2)
a. Put the metal track on the ground or place it between two equally elevated surfaces
b. Now, attach two identical springs (identical to the one of the first experience) at the
two ends of the track
c. Take two wireless smart carts, each with a magnet and a hook, and connect them
through the magnets
d. Insert the two springs into the hooks of the two carts
e. Place the connected carts at one end of the plane and then release
4. After looking at the graphs in SPARKvue, take note of the experimental period
8. Compute the percent error between the experimental and the theoretical values of t using the
theoretical – measured
formula ∙ 100
theoretical

5. Inclined plane 6. Horizontal plane

 Video 1: Inclined plane Video 2: horizontal plane

Data:

Data for the first part of the pendulum experience

Weight (kg) Average time (s) Length (m)
0.010 1.12 0.355
0.025 1.13 0.387
0.050 1.21 0.355

Data for the second part of the pendulum experience

Length (m) Average time (s) Average time2 (s)
0.160 0.708 0.501
0.235 0.930 0.865
0.275 1.076 1.158
0.320 1.126 1.268
0.345 1.184 1.402
0.500 1.406 1.977
0.550 1.428 2.039

l-t2 graph
0.6

0.5 f(x) = 0.247081113282166 x + 0.0149227210934491

0.4

0.3
l (m)

0.2

0.1

0
0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 2.200
t2 (s)
Theoretical ‘m’: 0.248
Experimental ‘m’: 0,2471
o Percent error: 0.18%

Data for the first part of the spring experience

 Length at rest: 7.5 ∙ 10-2 m
 Final length: 2.1∙ 10-1 m
 Mass of the lab weight: 0.049kg
 Theoretical elastic constant of the spring: 3.6 N/m

Data for the second part of the spring experience

Experimental:

Y1: s-t graph, Y2: v-t graph, Y3: a-t graph

s-t graph with two springs

 K = 3.6 N/m
 ω = 8.57 rad/s
 Mass of the smart cart: 0.245kg
 theoretical time: 1.65s
 experimental time: distance ‘t’ in the first graph 1.75s
o percent error: 6.2%

Data analysis:
Data analysis for the first part of the pendulum experience
First of all, we wanted to prove that the period doesn’t depend on the mass attached to the pendulum,
but rather it depends on the pendulum’s length. In fact, in the data we collected we can observe that
the time needed to perform one oscillation in the cases of the 50g and the 10g lab weights were almost
identical (1.13s and 1.12s), while on the other hand there was a different result for the 25g lab weight
(1.21s). As stated previously, this is not due to the variation of the mass, otherwise even the periods of
the 50g and the 10g lab weights would have very different values. Instead, we can assume this
happened because of the position of the barycentre in the three objects: while the 50g and the 10g lab
weights had a flatter shape, the 25g one was longer, and so the length of the pendulum changed
significantly. In the end, we can consider the data collected coherent with the theoretical idea. (see
image 7)

7. the shape and barycentre of the lab weights

Data analysis for the second part of the pendulum experience

In this part of the experience, our goal was to provide the experimental proof of the formulaω=

4 π2
√ g,
l
which is the same as proving T 2= ∙ l. From our excel graph, we can see that ‘q’ is 0.0149, a
g
number quite close to 0, which is the ideal value since we’re talking about a quadratic proportionality:
this means that the data collected is most likely right. Moreover, the theoretical ‘m’ should also be
g
equals to 2 : in the graph, this value is 0.2471, while the one obtained from the formula is 0.248.
4π
The percent error between them is 0.18%, a value much smaller than 10%. Lastly, since this is a
quadratic proportionality the points in the graph should form a straight line, and in our case this is
exactly what happens, although some imprecisions are present.

These imprecisions are most likely due to mistakes in the calculations, approximations or even in the
initial measuring, since starting and stopping the chronometers in the right instant can be quite tricky
when talking about smaller values. ERROR BARS

Data analysis for the spring experience (parts 1 and 2)

Then, we wanted to study the experimental and the theoretical graphs of the spring. In particular, we
drew a comparison between at the values of the time obtained from the graphs generated by the
computer and the one obtained by inverting the formula ω=
√ k (where ω = 2 π ). As seen in the
m T
data, the two measurements only have a percent error of 6.2% between them, and we know that as
long as this value doesn’t exceed 10% then it is acceptable. Therefore, we can assume that our result
is right.

It’s plausible that the mistake was once again present in the calculations or in the measurements, as
human errors are relatively common. It is less likely that the imprecision was generated by the
computer, since the cart and the app should generally be more accurate than humans.
In the second part, we also looked at the experimental proof of the formula ω=
√ k . To provide this
m
proof, we needed to compare the two values of time: this was already done in the first part of the
spring experience and we managed to understand that the results were correct.

Conclusion:

To conclude, this lab experience about harmonic motion was divided into two parts and had a total of
four goals, among which the last two were directly connected:
 First part: pendulum
o Prove that the period doesn’t depend on the mass attached to the pendulum


o Provide the experimental proof of the formulaω= g

Second part: spring

√ l

o Compare the experimental and the theoretical graphs

o Provide the experimental proof of the formula ω= k

√ m
In order to complete the first goal, we hung three different masses on the pendulum and discovered
that in the first two cases (10g, 50g), the period was almost identical, while in the third case (25g) this
value changed significantly. We drew the conclusion that the time needed to complete one oscillation
doesn’t vary due to the mass, but rather due to a change in the length considered.
In the second part, we picked seven different lengths for the pendulum and observed the change in the
period with an excel l-t2 graph. By displaying the equation of the chart, we could see that ‘q’ and ‘m’
were very similar to the expected values found with the formulas ω=
√ g and g with only smaller
l 4π
2

differences caused by human errors. Moreover, we also added error bars and studied the standard
deviation. ERROR BARS
In the last two parts of this experience, we studied harmonic motion in a spring. First of all, we found
out the theoretical ‘K’ of a spring, and afterwards we used identical springs applied to wireless smart
cars to automatically collect the information on the movement of the object into s-t, v-t and a-t graphs.
With this data, we measured the experimental time ‘t’ in obtained from the computer and we
compared it to the theoretical time derived from the formula ω=
√ k where ω = 2 π . Yet another
m T
time, the errors were likely generated while collecting the measurements and while performing the
calculations.
Overall, this experience was carried out properly.