Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Figure 1 and 2
Where:
F: The force applied on the spring and the hanging mass m to create a displacement s on the system
(spring with hanging mass).
: The displacement produced by F on the system equivalent to the extension or compression
produced on the spring assuming no energy is lost due to friction during the simple harmonic
motion of the system, 1 in the directly downward direction.
: The acceleration of the system due to F.
: The equilibrium position of the system depending on the mass m.
: The mass of the object hung on the spring in kg.
: Time taken for the system to return to the starting extended position during simple harmonic
motion, measured in s: specifically, T is the period or time taken for one complete oscillation. The
figure depicts 10 measurements of T as the method used to obtain data: time taken for 10 complete
oscillations of the system is measured.
1
Propagation of Uncertainties:
The variables defined above of whom we are working with in this experiment is the independent
variable mass m hung on the spring and the dependent variable time T taken for the system to
return to its original position while in simple harmonic motion. Below is the table containing the
raw data obtained in the experiment where 10 measurements of T: 10T are taken thrice for eight
trials of each value of m are taken so as to reduce random error in the data as much as possible. T.N.
is defined as the trial number.
It is taken that there is negligible uncertainty in mass m so propagations of uncertainties for m are
excluded.
The uncertainty in the time taken for 10 complete oscillations is given by the equation:
10 10
10 =
2
Where,
10 : The uncertainty in the average length 10 , where i corresponds to the set of data of a
certain value i of T.N. obtained for different values of mass .
10 : The maximum value obtained for the time taken 10T due to mass for a trial value of i.
10 : The minimum value obtained for the time taken 10T due to mass for a trial value of i.
Similarly, the average time taken for 10 complete oscillations is given by the equation:
3=1 10
10 =
Where,
= 3: The number of trials taken for 10T for a certain i.
: The value of the trial of 10T for a certain i.
The following is a table presenting the propagated uncertainties for 10T the time taken to complete
10 oscillations by the system due to varied masses m and the average extended length 10:
The uncertainty chosen as the average time taken for 10 oscillations 10 = 0.10
Now, the average time taken for one complete oscillation can be deduced by dividing each value of
10 by 10 and the absolute uncertainty in thus period T can similarly be obtained by dividing 10
by 10:
= 0.010 is the absolute uncertainty in the average time taken to complete an oscillation.
Compiling all the processed uncertainties and data obtained from the trials, the following table
presents the data that this investigation will work with:
3
Graph 1: Mass Against Period: Analysis
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
m/kg
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
T/s
The graph of mass versus period clearly depicts an exponential relationship between them; to
verify this relationship we can use logarithms to find the exponential relationship between load and
extension. After mathematical verification we will return to analysing Graph 1 completely. We can
approach mathematical analysis of Graph 1 in the following way by using logarithms of mass m and
period T and mathematically and analytically deducing the exponential relationship between them.
The graph passes through the Origin so we may assume that there is proportionality between the
mass and the period to some exponential degree.
4
Graph 2: Logarithm of Load Against Logarithm of Extension: Analysis
=
log =
= + ; is a constant so let =
= +
= + : Eq. 1
= +
We can define Eq. 1 as a linear equation and identify analogous variables through which we can
identify n the exponential factor that relates T to m.
Thus,
: , The function plotted along the ordinate.
: , The gradient of the function.
: , The variable of the function plotted along the abscissa.
: , The y intercept of the function.
The logarithms of load and extension are represented in the table below:
T.N.
1 -1.30 -0.50
2 -1.00 -0.33
3 -0.82 -0.24
4 -0.70 -0.17
5 -0.60 -0.12
6 -0.52 -0.08
7 -0.46 -0.04
8 -0.40 -0.02
According to Eq.1, the exponential relation n is given by the gradient of the line of best fit of the
logarithm of m versus the logarithm of T:
= =
5
The data in the table in plotted in the following graph of the logarithm of m versus the logarithm of
T as physical evidence for the deduction above:
0.5
0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
-0.5
logm
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
logT
Thus, we have mathematically deduced that the exponential relation between mass m and period T
is quadratic; uncertainties were disregarded in this deduction, as it was a matter of simple
approximations that do not require extensive mathematical analysis. We can now say with
mathematical evidence that:
= 2 : Eq. 2
6
Graph 3: Mass Against Period-Squared: Analysis
While linearizing Graph 1, uncertainties for period-squared must also be propagated. Thus, the
most appropriate method of propagation would be through the following deductive equation:
2
2
=2
2 = 2 2
The following table presents the uncertainties so that a specific value can be analysed and chosen
as the uncertainty in 2 for each i:
T.N. ( 0.010)/ 2 / 2 2 / 2
1 0.314 0.098 0.060
2 0.472 0.222 0.010
3 0.578 0.334 0.010
4 0.682 0.465 0.010
5 0.758 0.574 0.020
6 0.839 0.703 0.020
7 0.909 0.826 0.020
8 0.957 0.916 0.020
Evidently, the mode uncertainty of 2 shown by the calculations would be the most appropriate
value to be the uncertainty in period squared.
= 2
Eq. 2 gives us the direct mathematical relationship between mass and period-squared. Comparing
the equation to the linear equation:
= +
2
=
2
2
= : Eq. 5
2
2 = ; : arbitrary variable to solve for x
= ; = 1
() = + : Eq. 6; , , constants.
= ; ,
2
We know that = 2 = , thus using Eq. 8:
2
=
2 = 4 2
= 42 2 : Eq. 9
The following presents the graph of mass plotted against period-squared; the final table of
processed data is also shown below; the absolute line of best fit is drawn with relevant error bars
without maximum or minimum gradients shown to avoid complicating the graph:
8
Graph 3: Mass against Period-Squared
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
m/kg
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
T2/s2
As predicted, we notice from Graph 3 that there is no y intercept; the line passes through the origin.
The gradient of the line in Graph 3, comparing to the linear equation, gives us the constant of
proportionality:
2
= =
4 2
Choosing points on the line of best fit to compute the absolute gradient:
= 17.0 2
9
Graph 4: Maximum and Minimum Gradient Lines of Best Fit: Analysis
We will now mathematically analyse the gradients of the graph given by considering the
uncertainties in the extension x. The Graph presented below: Graph 3, displays the gradient
uncertainties in load against extension. Two trend-lines distinguish the maximum gradient and the
minimum gradient maximum being the largest value and minimum being the lowest.
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Axis Title
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Axis Title
They can each be computed by the same equation used to calculate the gradient of Graph 1:
Computing the minimum gradient by taking the points that are indicated as circular markings on
Graph 3:
10
= 16.1 1
Computing the maximum gradient by taking the points that are indicated as triangular markings on
Graph 3:
So,
0.350
= 4 2 = 17.760 17.8 2 (3)
0.778
= 17.8 1
So, we can compute the uncertainty in the absolute gradient or constant through the following
equation:
=
2
So,
17.8 16.1
= = 0.85 0.9 2
2
= (17.0 0.9) 1
= (17.0 0.9) 1
The proportionality error between mass and period-squared is given by the percentage uncertainty
in :
0.9
= 100% = 5.294% 5.3%
17.0
11
Conclusion:
To summarise from the data analysis in the previous sections, this investigation concludes that the
mass attached to a spring in the orientation that is described by the figures 1 and 2 is in fact related
to the period for one complete oscillation in simple harmonic motion of the spring through the
mechanisms described in the figures. Our data evidently suggests that mass m is directly
proportional to the period-squared 2 (derived in Eq. 2 and supported by Gr. 3).
Mathematical analysis of this relation and the data that we have accumulated during the
investigation allow us to calculate a new physical quantity; this quantity k is known as the spring
constant or the stiffness of the spring and is calculable by approximating the gradient of the line of
best fit in Gr. 3. Said calculations of data have led to the result of approximating k as (17.0
0.9) 2 1. For the convenience of the homogeneity of units in Eq. 2, we had presented the
units of k to be given in 2 , however it is relevant to note that Le Systme International dUnits
or the S.I. system also provides the units of k in 1 and both units are homogenous to each other.
This conclusion is supported by Graphs 1-4. Graph 1 shows a parabola with m in the ordinate as the
function of T in the abscissa and suggests an exponential relation between the two variables. A
logarithmic analysis of these two variables in Graph 2 in fact supports that m as a function of T
provides a parabolic relationship from gradient analysis of the logarithmic graph, providing the
exact exponential relationship between m and T, which approximates to m being directly
proportional to the square of T. Furthermore, this conclusion seems promising due to the
theoretical solutions for the relationship between mass and period from Equations 2-9 which also
give theoretical evidence through deducing the physical situation that m is directly
proportional to 2 , these solutions also provide a physical significance to the constant of
proportionality, through which we have been able to calculate the spring constant k. To support the
suggestions made by Equations 2-9; Graph 3 presents mass m plotted against period-squared 2
and as predicted thereof, we get a linearized graph of a straight upward sloping line that passes
through the Origin (0,0), suggesting very evidently that mass in fact is directly proportional to the
period-squared. Finally, the analysis of maximum and minimum gradients in Graph 4 allows us to
provide and uncertainty in the spring constant k obtained through the analysis of Graph 3 and
furthermore allows us to approximate the error in proportionality between the mass and the
period-squared, which is calculated to approximately 5.3% error, a generally small error most
probably due to the quality of design and method of the investigation. Thus all this evidence points
to us that our conclusion is in fact correct.
The 5.3% error in proportionality perhaps arises primarily from random error. In Graphs 1-4 some
data points are scattered randomly about the line of best fit (or curve in Graph 1). Though only
slightly scattered and fitting the various functions (1: parabolic, 2: logarithmic, 3: linear)
approximately, this suggests the presence of random error in the data that we have collected in the
investigation. There are no y-intercepts in either Graph 1 or the linearized Graph 3 since both the
parabola and the linearized line of best fit goes through the Origin (0,0), which suggests
insignificant presence of systematic error in the database. Graph 4 shows x and y-intercepts in the
maximum and minimum gradient lines of best fit which suggests the presence of a random error in
the investigation. The significance of this error analysis is explored further in the sections below.
In reiteration, the evidence provided in this investigation leads us to conclude that mass m is
directly proportional to the period-squared 2 , and allows us to approximate the spring constant or
the stiffness of the spring k.
12
Evaluation of Procedure:
The investigation was carried out with increments of 0.050 and a total of eight increments were
made to accumulate a large reading. While this method of data collection minimises random error
to a certain extent, it lacked a wide range for the investigation as the largest mass for which data
was collected was a mere 0.400 and thus was limited to small masses while data could have
been collected until at least 0.600 which provides four more readings (it is important to note
that inclusion of data for too much mass exposes the risk for the spring to deform due to the
excessive weight exceeding the elastic limit of the spring). While mainly due to the incapability of
the materials provided in accommodating masses larger than 0.400 to be attached to the spring
this limitation of the data to lower values of mass decreases the validity of the investigation and its
results. It is not a great weakness in the investigation and is actually rather well managed due to the
amount of readings it provides.
Readings for 10T were taken thrice for each increment. It is evident that there are faults in this
method of data collection and is probably the source of a large portion of random error in the
investigation. The table of raw data shows the variation of uncertainty with each increment of mass
and evidence of a modal uncertainty is lacking and is random (uncertainty ranged from 0.03 to
0.10) and suggests that three trials for each increment is insufficient and causes inaccuracy in
readings (data scatter in Graph 1 and Graph 3). This limitation influences the uncertainty values
propagated and forces the investigator to choose the highest uncertainty found while propagating
them. This ultimately influences the divergence of the lines of maximum and minimum gradients
from the absolute line of best fit and provides a high value of uncertainty to be calculated for the
spring constant k thus causing relatively large percentage error in proportionality, reducing the
validity of the investigation and its results.
No efforts or mechanisms were adopted to reduce friction between the spring and the stand that it
was attached to as it was assumed that friction between two metallic surfaces (the spring and the
stand) would be too small to produce a significant systematic error in the time taken to complete
10 oscillations. There is evidence in the data analysis that this method is adequate to collect data, as
there werent any y-intercepts in either the un-linearized Graph 1 or the linearized Graph 3. It is
thus assumed that this doesnt contribute to any devaluation of the investigations conclusions and
results in any form. The mechanism involved in the experiment could sometimes cause instability
in the stand and cause it to vibrate and disrupt the constant and controlled horizontal dynamics of
the system (the spring was set to only oscillate in one direction, which is vertical); this was a
hindrance in the fluidity of the method i.e. the time management in the investigation and was
an obstacle in efficient, manageable and organised data collection, while not a direct hindrance on
the data itself, as any instability in the stand would cause us to restart the collection of data for that
reading. This could be fixed with a g-clamp to stabilise the stands position.
Furthermore, no efforts or mechanisms were adopted to make sure that the force applied to create
an extension of 1 so as to trigger simple harmonic motion on the spring was constant and
controlled. This could also possibly be another large source of random error in the investigation.
The constant extension force used to trigger simple harmonic motion causes the tension in the
spring, which leads to the acceleration in the opposite direction to the displacement caused by it. In
any given reading, when less force is used due to uncertainty, there is less acceleration and time
taken to complete 10 oscillations takes longer, while when more force is used due to uncertainty,
there is more acceleration and time taken to complete 10 oscillations takes faster. The uncertainty
in this extension or trigger force thus causes randomness in the readings and contributes to the
random scatter of data as well as the divergence of the lines of maximum and minimum gradients
from the absolute line of best fit causing a large uncertainty in the calculation of the gradient and
thus the calculation of the spring constant k thus inflicting relatively large error in proportionality.
This also reduces the validity of the conclusion and results of the investigation.
13
Improving the Investigation:
14