Pendulum

Lab
By Aditya Ranganathan Grade 11.2 Physics HL IBDP

http://www.juztimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Pendulum.png

Background information: The three laws for a Simple Gravity Pendulum A simple pendulum is an idealization of a real pendulum implementing the following assumptions: 1. The rod or cord on which the bob swings is massless, inextensible and always remains taut; 2. Motion occurs on one plane (the bob traces an arc, not an ellipse) 3. The motion does not lose energy to friction or air resistance Aim: To prove the theory that the equation T2 = 42l/g applies to the motion of a pendulum by conducting an experiment, recording data and plotting T2 vs. l which should result in a linear graph. Also, to find the acceleration due to gravity using data obtained from the experiment. Materials Required: 50 cm String x 1

Metal Bob of 2.21cm diamater x 1 Metre Rule x 1 Vernier Caliper x 1 Stopwatch x 1 (Least count 0.01s) Stand with clamp x 1 Data Collection Table 1.1 Length of String (cm)0.001cm 7.21 14.31 29.71 38.41 46.81 Note: the uncertainty of the Average is higher because when taking the sum of the 3 readings, the uncertainty is added up as well and when divided by 3, the uncertainty stays the same, so the uncertainty increases from 0.01s to 0.03s. First 3 reading times (s) for 20 oscillations 0.01s Average time (s) for 20 oscillations 0.03s Average time for 1 oscillation (s) 0.03s 10.63 14.03 21.30 24.55 27.24 1.36 1.23 1.07 0.70 0.53

10.66 10.63 10.60 14.15 13.87 14.09 21.31 21.31 21.28 24.62 24.50 24.53 27.31 27.16 27.25

Figure 1.1 L vs Avg. time for 1 oscillation

Average time for 1 oscillation (s)

Average time for 1 oscillati on (s)
1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0.532 0.702 y = 0.188x0.511 1.228 1.065 1.362 Average time for 1 oscillation (s) Power(Average time for 1 oscillation (s))

Length of string (cm)

The relationship suggested by the trendline does somewhat match the relationship shown by the data in Table 1.1, but does not from the range x=0.532 - 1.065 However, both relationships show that the slope is decreasing per unit length. This fact shows that the relationship is not linear, and also that the rate of increase of x is higher than that of y, causing the slope to become less steep. The rate of increase in length of string is higher than the rate of increase of the average time taken for 1 oscillation. The theory predicts that the period depends on the square root of the length, so from the equation: T=2(l/g)1/2 Which can also be expressed as: T2 = 42l/g To plot T2 vs. l;

Table 1.2 l 7.21 14.31 29.71 38.41 46.81 Figure 1.2 T2 vs. l T2 0.28 0.49 1.13 1.51 1.86

T2
2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0.28 0.49 1.13 1.51 T2 Linear(T2) 1.86

Length of string (cm)

Except for the range 0.28-0.49, there is a linear relationship between T2 and l. The gradient of the trendline is: or simply; (Y2-Y1)/(X2-X1) --->(1.86-0.28)/(46.81-7.21) =1.58/39.6

=0.039898989 T2 = 42l/g rearranging the equation, we can say that g=(42l)/T2 Now that we have found l/T2 (i.e. the gradient of figure 1.2), we can say that to calculate acceleration due to gravity; --->g=42/m, or (1/m)42 =(1/0.039898989)42 =989.4590964 cm/s2 =9.894590964 m/s2 The actual value of acceleration due to gravity is 9.80665 m/s2 So there is a 0.087940964 m/s2 difference in my calculated value The percentage error here is 0.896748267%, and the error analysis is provided in the evaluation.

Conclusion
From this experiment, I can conclude that the theory that the equation T=2(l/g)1/2 (or simply T2 = 42l/g) is valid, and also helps to deduce acceleration due to gravity through finding the linear relationship between T2 and l.

Evaluation
Since there was a 0.896748267%, some error has undoubtedly been introduced into the experiment. I think that the method could have been improved with the use of sensors, which is explained below, but this is not practical for classroom use. There is a very significant amount of random error introduced into this experiment. To measure the time taken for 20 oscillations, I used a stopwatch and manually stopped it every time I saw the bob reach the initial approximate angle from which it was dropped. Error here comes from the reaction time it takes for me to press the stop button on the stopwatch to stop the time and take the reading, and from my approximation of when to stop the watch itself. My approximation is not perfect, as I am stopping the watch when I feel the bob is turning directions at the end of one side of its trajectory. I am also assuming that the motion is on the same plane, and that the pendulum is not moving even a slight ellipse, which the naked eye cannot discern accurately. Also, I have used a digital instrument with an uncertainty of 0.01s. One way to eliminate these errors is by using an ultrasonic sensor to detect when the pendulum reaches its maximum height on the side from which it was dropped. This would very significantly decrease the random (human) error induced into the experiment through taking readings manually. This sensor would automatically, nearly instantaneously; take the reading of the time when the pendulum reaches the exact height the experimenter wants it to.

Furthermore, we did not release the bob from the exact same angle every time. We did release it from approximately 10 degrees, but it was not in the absolute same position every time, which introduced random error into the experiment. This could have been improved on by again using a sensor to tell the experimenter at which point to release the pendulum from. Also, the fans were when we were conducting the experiment. This is a significant source of error. The air currents the fan created may have caused variations in the swings of the pendulum, and this may have lead to inaccuracy in the results recorded. To assure that this source of error is avoided, all the fans should be turned off for the duration of the experiment. Bibliography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum Accessed on Sunday September 25 at 10:52pm http://www.myphysicslab.com/pendulum1.html Accessed on Saturday September 24 at 9:43am