2-3 B Spring Lab After determining the spring constants for three different springs, spring equivalents were

calculated for the configurations of the springs in both series and parallels. General equations were derived for both the spring equivalent of a parallel configuration and a serial configuration. Data Analysis: Parallel

6 5 FOrce (N) 4 3 2 1 0 0

Red and Blue Springs in Parallel Configuration

F = 27.65L+ 2.02 R = 0.99773

0.05

L (m)

0.1

0.15

15

2 Green Springs in Parallel Configuration

F = 77.32L+ 4.75 R = 0.99784

Force (N)

10

0 0 0.05 L (m) 0.1

Series

5 4 Force (N) 3 2 1 0 0

Red and Green in Serial Configuration

F = 7.99L+ 2.16 R = 0.99982

0.1

L (m)

0.2

0.3

3.5 3 Force (N) 2.5 2 1 0 0 1.5 0.5

2 Blue Springs in Serial Configuration

F= 9.79L + 1.47 R = 0.99999

0.05

0.1 L (m)

0.15

0.2

Conclusion: Originally, in the pre-lab, all three springs red, green, and blue, were tested to determine their spring constants by attaching weights to the springs that would allow daylight to pass through them. All of their graphs were linear the equation for the red spring was: F = 9.88L + 0.72 With an R = 0.99985. It is evident that the spring constant of the red spring is 9.88 because K= This is actually quite close to the established spring constant for the red spring which is 10 . Therefore the percent error is only 1.2%. The percent error was calculated by the following equation: | | The equation for the blue spring was: F = 19.6

+ 1.96

With an R = 1. Therefore the drawn spring constant for the blue spring was 19.6 , which is only a slight deviation from the official value of 20 with a percent error of 2%. Finally the equation of the green spring that was derived: F = 40.49L + 2.91 With an R = 0.99951. The official spring constant of the green spring is 40 ; therefore the percent error was only 1.2%. The red spring was the most easily compressible, while the green spring was the most difficult to compress and the blue spring was in between the other two. Once the springs were made into parallel and serial configurations, the lab became much more complex. When two green springs (each with a spring constant around 40 ) were put together in a parallel configuration the equation that resulted was as follows: F = 77.32L+ 4.75 With an R = 0.99784 which dictates that the equation fit the data fairly well. It is important to note that the coefficient of L is near 80, which is the addition of the spring constants of the two green springs (40 ). Thus the percent error of this value is 3.4 %. Then, when the red and blue springs were put together into a parallel configuration, the mass had to be moved off center in order to balance the bar (so that the bar doesnt tip since one spring has a different spring constant than the other). The equation that resulted was F = 27.65L+ 2.02 With an R = 0.99773. Once again, the coefficient of L is close to the value resulting from the addition of the spring constants of the two springs. Since the blue spring has a K=20 and the red spring has a K=10, the Keq of this configuration should be 30, and the groups findings had 7.8% deviation from the accepted value. The general equation that can be derived for parallel spring configurations from this experiment is: Keq=k1+k2++kn The derivation of the formula for the spring equivalent in a serial configuration was much more difficult. The specific equation for the serial configuration of two blue springs was F= 9.79L + 1.47 With an R = 0.99999. While the specific equation for the serial configuration of one red and one green spring was F = 7.99L+ 2.16 With an R = 0.99982. The general equation is not obvious just from these two equations, and is as follows:

This equation can be derived through the length (displacement of spring) that was measured. It is quite clear that Leq=l1+l2++ln From there, using the equation F=kL It is clear that

And force cancels out, so the general equation for the serial spring equivalent is left. There is much confidence in these results due to multiple factors. First of all, the R2 values are all very high signifying that the equations match the data, the percent deviation from the accepted values is also very small, and further confidence is built upon the coincidence of other research groups data with our own.

Group Fig Newtons

Series B+B G+B G+G R+G

keq (N/m) 10.0 13.8 9.8 9.8

Parallel B+B G+B B+B R+B

keq (N/m) 40.3 60.4 40.8 9.8 Also did parallel R+B+G in series with par allel R+B+G keq = 10.89 N/m Individual springs reported as R = 9.96 N/m B = 19.6 N/m G = 39.95 N/m

Bunney and the Rabbits

Charlie's Angels

R+R B+R G+G B+G R+R G+B G+G G+B B+B G+B B+B G+B

4.8 6.3 19.6 12.7 4.9 13.2 20.3 13.5 9.8 13.2 9.8 13.2

B+B B+R B+B B+G G+G G+B B+B B+G R+R G+R B+B G+B

41.2 28.9 39.0 57.1 76.1 60.6 40.1 56.7 19.6 49.0 39.3 55.9

Individual springs reported as R = 9.9 N/m B = 19.8 N/m

G = 40.4 N/m

Flamingos

Oceanic 3

FLH

Chimichangas

Koalas

Reference Source: Knight, Randall D., Brian Jones, and Stuart Field. College Physics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub., 2006. Print.