Physics Lab 2
Physics Lab 2
Physics Lab 2
Experimental Design:
Research Question:
What is the effect of a change in mass attached to a spring on the extension of the spring, e,
and the period of an oscillation of the spring, T, while keeping the string type and oscillations
recorded per mass constant.
Hypothesis:
Regardless of the change in mass attached to the spring, length extended, e, will be directly
proportional to the square of the period per oscillation, T2. So, as e increases, T will increase
at the rate of the square of the change of e. This relation can be derived from Hooke’s Law
and the period of oscillation equation.
Theory:
The equation of the period of oscillation is
T =2 π
√ m
k
Hooke’s Law states that the force needed to extend the spring by a given amount is equal to
the multiplication of the spring constant the meters extended. Which, in an equation is
F=ke
It is also known that
F=mg
Since in the experiment the spring the positioned vertically, the acceleration will be equal to
g. This means that
m e
=
k g
Therefore, it can be said that
T =2 π
√ e
g
If g is left alone, the equation will look like
2
e ×4 π
g=
T2
Which proves that in theory, e and T 2 are directly proportional. In order to prove this relation,
an experiment has been done measuring the time per 10 oscillations and the length extended
on the same spring when different magnitudes of weights are attached to it. Later a graph is
plotted to show the findings of the experiment and prove that both values are proportional to
each other.
Variables:
Variables Identified Type of Variable
Amount of mass hanged on the spring Independent Variable
Extension of the spring Dependent Variable
Time per 10 oscillations Dependent Variable
Type of spring Controlled Variable
Number of oscillations per mass Controlled Variable
Type of mass Controlled Variable
Hook
Ruler
Spring
Clamp
Pointer
Ring
Stand
Metal
Mass
Holder
Clamp
Metal
Masses
Safety Aspects:
A safety concern for the experimenter would be the chance of a weight hitting him or her. If
the spring was loaded with more weight than its maximum amount, which is 700g, it could
deform and hit the experimenter in an unexpected way. An extreme amount of weight could
also break the spring and could also result in an experimenter getting hurt. Furthermore, the
way that the force on the spring when measuring the time for oscillations applied may also
cause some injuries. For example, a person could get hurt because there was too much force
applied on the spring which caused it to swing in an unexpected way or if the applied force
was sideways or diagonal, it could’ve hurt a person because the spring swinged in an
unexpected way. To prevent these injuries, Only the oscillations and extensions up to 700g
were recorded, the force applied when measuring the period of oscillations was as small as
possible while also keeping the oscillations noticeable by eye, and the measurements were
taken from a distance in order to minimize the risk of an injury.
Procedure:
Set up the device by securing the ring stand with the clamp to the edge of the table, and
clamping the ruler and the hook to the ring stand. Then attach the spring to the hook, the
pointer to the spring and the mass to the pointer.
After the setup is done, start by recording the extensions of the weights with 100g increments
in between. The weight of the metal mass holder shouldn’t be accounted for in this
experiment and be taken as 0. To record the extensions, put one 100g metal mass onto the
holder. Wait until it’s become steady and record the observed length. The length can be
obtained by taking the pointer as the height indicator and looking at which increment on the
ruler it points to, and subtracting the length with no weights on the holder from the length
with weights. Stop this process after recording the extension with 700g of weight attached to
the string. Lastly, record the uncertainty by looking at the smallest interval on the ruler.
After recording the extensions, record the time per ten oscillations. First choose one team
member to measure the time and measure his or her reaction time since it is going to be the
uncertainty in the time. Then, start by first putting one 100g weight on the holder. Apply a
slight force to the weight and measure the time it takes to oscillate for 10 times. Repeat this
process with the same weight for 5 times. After finishing one weight add another 100g weight
and do the same procedure for it. Repeat until 5 different 10 oscillation times are measured for
every weight up to and including 700g.
When the experiment is done, process the raw data and get the average time per 10
oscillations for each weight. Then, get the average period per oscillation by dividing the
average by 10.
Later, plot a graph showing the relation between extension and the square of period per
oscillation with the uncertainties. Draw a best fit line, a maximum slope and a minimum
slope. Indicate the ranges of the y-intercepts and the slopes. Calculate g with the equation
2
e ×4 π
g= 2 . After that, calculate the percentage deviation of the experimental g value from
T
the real g value which will give the experiments overall percentage error. At last, comment on
the procedure, its uncertainties and their reasons, and how the experiment can be improved
next time.
Timer: Used by
one person in Ruler: Is not
order to keep changed in Hook: No Used to fix the
the uncertainty order to modifications ring stand in
values the minimize the are made to its place. Which is
same. chance of form or is not keeping other
misreading any changedd with materials fixed,
measurements. another hook to therefore is
obtain close important to
Qualitative Observations:
- As the masses got heavier, the spring extends more.
- As the masses attached to the spring got heavier, the average time for 10 oscillations
went up.
- Both the extension length and time for 20 oscillations increase when increasing the
mass and decrease when decreasing the mass.
Raw Data Table:
Raw Data Table Showing the Extension and 5 10 Second Oscillation Trials for Each
Mass
Time (s) ±0,01***
Mass (kg) ±1%* Extension (cm) ±0,1** Trial1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
0,0 0,0
0,1 8,7 8,72 8,50 8,81 8,59 8,59
0,2 17,5 10,37 10,38 10,59 10,48 10,50
0,3 26,4 11,97 12,11 12,16 12,16 11,90
0,4 35,0 13,50 13,47 13,56 13,44 13,45
0,5 43,8 14,66 14,68 14,75 14,81 14,75
0,6 52,4 15,87 15,69 15,75 15,88 15,78
0,7 61,1 16,75 16,84 16,84 16,91 16,75
Sample Calculation:
- Calculate the average of the 5 trials of one mass and divide by 10 to achieve period
time per one oscillation
8,72+8,50+ 8,81+ 8,59+8,59
5
=0,86 s
10
max−min
- Find the uncertainty of the average time by using the formula and divide by
2
10 to find the uncertainty of one period time per one oscillation
8,81−8,50
2
=0,03
10
- Find the period time2 and its uncertainty by the formula
Period Uncertainty
×2 ×( Average Period )2
Average Period
2
0,86 =0,75 s
0,03
× 2× 0,75=0,05 s
0,86
Graph of Extension vs Period2:
2
e ×4 π
The equation suggests that g= , and extension and period2 are directly proportional
T2
to each other. If extension is put at the y-axis and period 2 at the x-axis, g can be found by
multiplying the gradient by 4 π 2.
Graph Calculations:
max slope−min slope 0,2684−0,2427
Uncertainty ∈slope= = =0,00905
2 2
−2
Slope=0,2427 ± 0,00905 m s
2 2
Gravitational Acceleration=Slope × 4 π =0,2427 × 4 π =9,58141=9,581
2
Uncertainty of Gravitational Acceleration=0,00905 × 4 π =0,35728=0,357
Gravitational Acceleration=9,531± 0,357
Range of y−intercept =−0,08554−(−0,1398 )=0,05426
Range
Uncertainty of y−intercept = =0,02713 y−intercept =−0,1007 ± 0,02713 m
2
Conclusion:
The experimental results suggest that the hypothesis was true. From the graph, it can be seen
that there is a positive and a linear relationship between extension and period 2. When one of
the values increases, the other also increases and when one of them decreases, the other also
decreases. From the calculations, the real value of g was within the uncertainty of the
experimental value of g.
|real value−exp . value| |9.807−9,531|
Percent Error= × 100= ×100=2,81%
real value 9,807
Even though the graph shows a linear and positive gradient, it also shows that the best fit line
doesn’t pass through the origin. Which suggests that there may have been a systematic error
in the experiment. The data points are also not perfectly linear which also shows that there
was a small random error in the experiments. This may mean that the hypothesis was
incorrect or just not fully correct, however, since the real g value lies within the uncertainties
of the experimental one, it can also be true from another perspective.
Evaluation:
Overall, the whole setup worked well. The percentage error of the experiment was only 2,81%
which shows that there weren’t any significant causes for errors. The setup even though is not
exempt from any outside factors gives a satisfactory result that is close to the theoretical one.
Of course, it isn’t the same as the theoretical value which means there is still room to
improve.
All of the data was recorded by humans. Which means that there is at least some number of
random errors in the experiment. In the experiment, there were some measurements where the
length of the string was between two values and there was a chance that the pointer may be
pointing to one or the other, also when timing the oscillations, there has to be some time
between when the spring makes its 10th oscillation and the moment the person stops the timer.
This factor can be eliminated by using machines that measure the precise lengths of distances
and ones that can react much faster to the oscillation of a spring than humans can. The
changing air resistance, the horizontal oscillation when the spring is vertically oscillating, and
the force that the metal masses apply when they take flight for a few moments and then land
on the holder is also a factor that affects the random error.
An assumption that was made during the experiment is that air resistance will be negligible.
This allowed for us to calculate the result easier and made the measuring process easier.
However, it caused the experiment to not reach the real value of g. Another assumption that
was made was that the metal masses only had a 1% rate of uncertainty and no other mass lost
by any outside factors such as abrasion. This assumption was made to simplify the
experimental process. However, the fluctuation of the masses, if there were any, could’ve
contributed to the random errors. These factors can be gotten ridden of by attaching a sensor
to record the air resistance on the spring and the masses and by either recording the masses
with precise weight or using new masses with no abrasion or other outside factors that
could’ve made the weight lighter.