Better Exemplar PH 3.1 Practice B

THE PERIOD OF A MASS ON A SPRING – BABY BOUNCER
Introduction
It is thought that a baby in a baby bouncer might behave rather like a mass on a spring.
Theory suggests that a mass on a spring has a period given by the equation
T = 2π√(m/k)
In this investigation we will investigate the relationship of period, T and mass, m.
Independent Variable
The mass will be varied by adding masses to the stack.
The mass will be varied between 0.100kg and 0.500kg in 0.050kg intervals giving nine
values over a reasonable range. It is assumed that the masses are manufactured with
a precision of ± 1g.
Dependent Variable
The period will be measured using a stopwatch (±0.1s allowing for reaction time). The
mass will be set in motion by pulling it down and releasing it. Once it is oscillating
steadily the stop watch will be started as the mass passes a fiducial mark on the
clampstand, and the time for ten full oscillations will be measured. This will be repeated
three times.
Other Variables
The equation shows that k is a variable. This will be controlled by using the same
spring throughout the experiment. In order to improve the final analysis, k will be
measured by first plotting a force / extension graph and measuring the gradient.
The oscillations are expected to be isochronous, so that the period is unaffected by the
amplitude. To check that this is the case, initial measurements of period for large and
small amplitudes will be taken.
Improving Accuracy
Random uncertainty will be reduced by measuring ten oscillations, and repeating each
measurement three times.
Systematic uncertainty will be reduced by starting and stopping the stopwatch as the
mass passes a fiducial mark.
It is important that the only motion is a vertical oscillation. Care will be taken to ensure
that the mass on a spring does not swing to produce any pendulum effects.
Results
F/N x/m
0.5 0.004
1.0 0.020
1.5 0.036
2.0 0.054
2.5 0.070
3.0 0.088
3.5 0.105
4.0 0.125
4.5 0.137
5.0 0.157
The spring constant is 29Nm-1
Is the motion isochronous?

small amplitude T = 0.66s
large amplitude T = 0.67s
Both measurements are averages based on repeat readings with a mass of 0.3kg.
The period is not affected by amplitude, and so the starting amplitude and the
decreasing amplitude during a measurement of 10 oscillations do not need to be
controlled.
Note: all times measured to ± 0.1s

each slotted mass has an uncertainty of ± 0.001kg
so uncertainty is added with each extra mass
(half range)
10T /s (3)
10T /s (1)
10T /s (2)
(average)
Δm / kg
10T /s
m /kg
Δ10T
ΔT /s
T /s
0.100 0.002 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.2 0.2 0.42 0.02

0.150 0.003 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.76 0.05 0.476 0.005
0.200 0.004 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.43 0.05 0.543 0.005
0.250 0.005 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.13 0.05 0.613 0.005
0.300 0.006 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.60 0.00 0.660 0.000
0.350 0.007 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.07 0.05 0.707 0.005
0.400 0.008 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.5 0.1 0.75 0.01
0.450 0.009 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.00 0.00 0.800 0.000
0.50 0.01 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.43 0.05 0.843 0.005
The half range method is used to find the uncertainty in 10T

eg for m = 0.100kg, Δ10T = (4.3 – 4.0) / 2 = 0.02s (1sf)
Processed Data
(rounded)
Δm / kg
2ΔT(%)
ΔT2 /s2
ΔT(%)
T2 / s2
m /kg
ΔT /s
T /s
0.100 0.002 0.42 0.02 4.8 9.6 0.18 0.02
0.150 0.003 0.476 0.005 1.1 2.2 0.227 0.005
0.200 0.004 0.543 0.005 0.9 1.8 0.295 0.005
0.250 0.005 0.613 0.005 0.8 1.6 0.376 0.006
0.300 0.006 0.660 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.436 0.000
0.350 0.007 0.707 0.005 0.7 1.4 0.500 0.007
0.400 0.008 0.75 0.01 1.3 2.6 0.56 0.01
0.450 0.009 0.800 0.000 0.0 0.0 0.640 0.000
0.50 0.01 0.843 0.005 0.6 1.2 0.711 0.009
The uncertainty in T2 is found using 2 x percentage uncertainties in T

eg for m = 0.100kg
percentage uncertainty in T, ΔT(%) = (ΔT/T) x 100% = (0.02/0.42) x 100%
uncertainty in T2 ΔT2 = 2 x 4.8% x 0.176 = 0.02s2
Graph
The graph, with appropriate error bars, gave a straight line with a gradient of 1.34 and
an intercept of 0.03 ± 0.01 s2. The error lines gave a minimum gradient of 1.26. The
gradient can therefore be quoted as 1.34 ± 0.08 s2kg-1.
Conclusion
The results produced a non-linear relationship, which gave the equation
T2 = (1.34±0.08) x m + 0.03 ± 0.01
The aim of the experiment was to confirm that

T = 2π√(m/k)
which could be written
T2 = (4π2/k) x m
which is of the same form as the experimental result except for the presence of an
intercept on the T2 axis
The relative uncertainty in the gradient is 6.0% (which is less than 10%) suggesting that
this is a valid relationship.
If we use the gradient to calculate a value for k
grad = 4π2/k
k = 4π2/1.34
k = 29.5
If we assume that this has a 6.0% uncertainty, then
k = 30 ± 2 Nm-1
which is within the range of the value obtained by measurement of force and extension
(29Nm-1), which also suggests that the equation is valid.
Discussion of the Experiment

The above discussion shows that the theoretical equation is a valid representation of
the motion of a mass on a spring, with an agreement of 94 %.
The measurements of period were facilitated by the use of a fiducial mark, and proved
to be to a high level of precision. The largest relative uncertainty was only 4.8%, and
was for the smallest mass, and thus the shortest period.
Some problems were encountered initially as the mass on a spring began to swing like
a pendulum. At times the two motions cancelled out making it very difficult to determine
the period of the vertical motion. This is a phenomenon similar to beats seen when two
wave frequencies interact. The result was that if the mass on a spring was allowed to
swing like a pendulum (one whose length is constantly changing) it was impossible to
measure the period of the simple harmonic motion of the mass on a spring. It was
found that by using small amplitude oscillations it was possible to minimise the
swinging, and so this method was used to obtain the results shown.
A mass of 0.050kg was available, but it was found that the spring did not extend very
much (see force/extension results), and it was observed that the coils of the spring hit
each other, which may have resulted in something other than SHM, so the smallest
mass used was 0.100kg. With the smaller masses there was a tendency for the spring
to jump on the support. This problem was eliminated by using small oscillations. If this
is ignored, there is a risk that the mass will effectively be in freefall at some points rather
than undergoing SHM.
The graph has a non-zero intercept, suggesting that the period has some value even
when there is no mass on the spring. By simply holding the spring on its support and
pulling it, it is easy to see that the spring does indeed vibrate on its own, although it is
difficult to measure whether the period of oscillation is 0.17s (T2 = 0.03s2) as the graph
suggests.
The experiment may have some limitations when used as a model of the baby bouncer
for a number of reasons. The baby is not a simple object like a mass, particularly as it
has moving parts such as arms and legs, which would make the motion more
complicated. For example if the baby throws his arms upwards, he may accelerate
downwards at a greater rate. Furthermore, baby bouncers often have a rubber bungee
rather than a steel spring, which may not obey Hooke’s Law, and thus the equation
would be of a different form. It would be interesting to develop the experiment by
repeating it with a rubber band to see how the relationship between period and mass is
affected.

Better Exemplar PH 3.1 Practice B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Better Exemplar PH 3.1 Practice B

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Better Exemplar PH 3.1 Practice B

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE PERIOD OF A MASS ON A SPRING – BABY BOUNCER

In this investigation we will investigate the relationship of period, T and mass, m.

The spring constant is 29Nm-1

Is the motion isochronous?

Note: all times measured to ± 0.1s

0.100 0.002 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.2 0.2 0.42 0.02

The half range method is used to find the uncertainty in 10T

The uncertainty in T2 is found using 2 x percentage uncertainties in T

T2 = (1.34±0.08) x m + 0.03 ± 0.01

The aim of the experiment was to confirm that

Discussion of the Experiment

You might also like