Romil Patel

PHYS 1P91- LAB 03

Experiment 1: The Pendulum

Student

First Name
Romil
Anahita

Last Name
Patel
Hosseinpour

Brock email
Rp15ar@brocku.ca
Ah15tc@brocku.ca

Date of the Lab

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Experimental data
Ru
n
1
2
3
4
5
1

mas
s
m1
m1
m1
m1
m1
m2

m (kg)

d (m)

s (m)

L (m)

B (rad/s)

T (s)

T2 (s2)

g (m/s2)

0.0225
0.0225
0.0225
0.0225
0.0225
0.0095

0.02540
0.02540
0.02540
0.02540
0.02540
0.01904

0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
0.90
0.50

0.3127
0.4627
0.6127
0.7627
0.9127
0.5095

-5.5765
-4.5930
-3.9841
3.5803
-3.2704
4.3884

1.13
1.37
1.57
1.75
1.92
1.43

1.27
1.87
2.49
3.08
3.69
2.05

9.72
9.76
9.72
9.78
9.76
9.81

Table 1: Pendulum experimental data

L

= s + 0.5d

(L)

= s + 0.5 d

= B2L

(g)

= (0.50m) +
0.5(0.01904m)
= (5x10-4m) +
0.5(5x10-6m)
=
(4.38839)2*(0.50952)
=

g (

2b
L
) +(
)
b
L

( 9.8123 )

= 0.50952m

(blank)

(s) = 5x10-4m

= 5.025x10-4m

(blank)

(d) = 5x10-6m

= 9.8123
=

0.18296

L=
g=

2 ( 0.00050025 )
(0.0095) 2
+ (
)
4.38839
0.50952

0.50952 5.025
x 10-4
9.8123
0.18296

Calculation template for Part 1: Determining g from a single measurement

I
1
2
3
4
5
<g> =
g=

gi
9.73
9.76
9.72
9.78
9.76
9.75
9.75 6.23x10-4

gi= gi <g>
-0.02
0.012
-0.03
0.03
0.013
Variance =
(g) =

(gi)2
4.6 x 10-4
1.4 x 10-4
9.5 x 10-4
7.8 x 10-4
1.6 x 10-4
6.23 x 10-4
0.025

Table 1: Calculation template for g and (g)

g
(g

= (A) * (42)

= (0.247854) * (42)

= 9.79

= g - gi

= 9.7849 9.7489

= 0.03595

A(m1)
=
A(m2)
=
g=

0.2479 0.83 x
10-3
0.2475 0.11 x
10-2
9.79 0.03595

Romil Patel
)

PHYS 1P91- LAB 03

Calculation template for Part III: Determining g from the slope of a graph

Graphs and data fits

Insert here the graphs obtained during the lab

Figure 1: pendulum oscillation with length y=0.300m

Figure 1: pendulum oscillation with length y=0.450m

Romil Patel

PHYS 1P91- LAB 03

Figure 1: pendulum oscillation with length y=0.600m

Figure 1: pendulum oscillation with length y=0.750m

Romil Patel

PHYS 1P91- LAB 03

Figure 1: pendulum oscillation with length y=0.900m

Figure 1: pendulum oscillation with length y=0.500m, mass m2

Romil Patel

Figure 1: statistical distribution curve from five calculated g values

PHYS 1P91- LAB 03

Romil Patel

Figure 8: linear fit of five calculated g values for m1

PHYS 1P91- LAB 03

Romil Patel

Figure 1: linear fit of five calculated g values for m1 and single value m2

PHYS 1P91- LAB 03

Romil Patel

PHYS 1P91- LAB 03

Discussion
Experimental Method
Determining g from a single
measurement
Determining g from a series of
measurements
Determining g from slope of a
graph

G-Value
9.8123

Error ()
0.18296

9.7489

6.23 x 10-4

9.7849

0.83 x 10-3

After looking at my results from the 3 experimental methods, I can conclude that once they do agree
with one another, once their associated error(s) is/are factored in. Also, when these g-values are being
compared with the accepted g-value of 9.80m/s2, it seems like my experiments do indeed make sense
and agree with each other. It is important for all or at least most of my experimentally found g-values to
agree with each other, in order to maintain a good accuracy, but also for my g-values to agree with the
accepted g-value of 9.80 m/s 2 for it to have a good precision and to show that the lab was indeed
conducted in a proper and effective manner, in which minimal mistakes/errors occurred. Based on my
results and my opinion, I feel that the method which would give the most reliable value of g would be
determining g from a single measurement using m2 (the lower mass). My reasoning behind this is that,
since you are dealing with a smaller mass, there is less of a fluctuation in the g value and the difference
in the g values was only by negligible numbers which would not make any difference(s). When you
look at the relationship between the variables T and L, you notice that when the length of the pendulum
increases, you would also expect that the period of the rotation to increase. This relationship can be
specifically seen in the graphs associated with the 3 rd experimental method (Figures 6-8). As the
pendulum length increases, the error associated with g should increase as the period would increase and
there would be a greater chance for an error in the given time period. Looking at the 2 nd experimental
method; determining g from a series of measurements, if I were to make 20 trials using m 1, as opposed
to the 5 trials that I did use, the error would significantly decrease as there would be more chances of
getting closer to the actual correct value of g, while simultaneously removing any extra errors in this
process. The T value does indeed vary with the mass of the ball. The reasoning behind this is that,
when the mass of the ball is lighter, there would be less momentum in each swing so the T value will be
larger per swing. In my opinion, the similarities I think there are between the averaging method and
the line of best fit method(s) is that they both involve finding the average, whether it is literally finding
a numerical average or relating the average to a function that would represent it, as it is in the latter.
Finally, if I were to draw a line through the experimental points that I plotted by hand, my reasoning
would be to try to make the line of best either above or under it in such a way, that I could cover the
maximum number points in order to get the most accurate average of the experimentally determined
data values. This choice can greatly affect my resulting value of g, as drawing in my line wrong would
make certain values appear as an outlier(s) or it could make some values seem inaccurate