00 mi piace00 non mi piace

185 visualizzazioni8 pagineAnalysis of the effects of the mass of the hanging weight, spring constant and amplitude of the motion in an oscillating spring/mass system

Feb 10, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

DOCX, PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

Analysis of the effects of the mass of the hanging weight, spring constant and amplitude of the motion in an oscillating spring/mass system

© All Rights Reserved

185 visualizzazioni

00 mi piace00 non mi piace

Analysis of the effects of the mass of the hanging weight, spring constant and amplitude of the motion in an oscillating spring/mass system

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Abstract:

In an oscillating spring/mass system, you can change the mass of the weight, spring constant or

amplitude of the motion. We performed various experiments to determine what affects the period

of a spring/mass system. We performed several trials of 3 different setups. In each one, 2 of the

factors were kept constant, while the third was changed. Then, the period was measured and a

graph was created to view the change in period, so we could easily tell if the independent

variable had any effect on the period. From these results, the slope of the trend lines for length of

mass and string constant were power functions but the trend line was linear for the amplitude.

Therefore, the mass of the weight and the spring constant had an effect on the period but the

amplitude did not.

Experimental Design:

Effect of spring

Effect of amplitude

Group I

Group II

Group III

Hypothesis

affects period.

Spring constant

affects period.

Amplitude affects

period.

IV

DV

CV

Hanging mass

Period

Spring constant =

7.8 Nm,

Amplitude = 0.1 m

Spring Constant

Period

Hanging mass =

350g,

Amplitude = 0.05 m

Amplitude

Period

Spring constant = 45.58

Nm,

Hanging mass = 350g

Hypothesis

IV

DV

CV

Mass

Period

Amplitude = 4 cm,

Spring constant =

33 Nm

Spring constant

Period

Mass = 200 g,

Amplitude = 4 cm

Amplitude

Period

Mass = 200 g,

Spring constant = 33

Nm

Hypothesis

IV

DV

CV

Mass

Period

Distance = 12.5 cm,

Spring constant =

37 Nm

Spring constant

Period

Mass = 90 g,

Spring constant = 37

Nm

Distance

Period

Mass = 90 g,

Distance = 5cm / 1cm

Results:

Uncertainties:

U{amplitude}=0.2cm; estimated error in using meter stick for measuring distance from

the point of support to the center of mass of the pendulum

U{time} = 0.0013s; calculated standard error from measuring then times at the same

distance

Group I:

MASS VS PERIOD

Mass Mathematical Model: y = 0.0925x0.0805

Mass (g)

Period (s)

50

0.521

70

0.613

90

0.689

110

0.761

130

0.825

150

0.881

230

1.08

Table 2: Group I Mass vs. Period data table

Spring Constant Mathematical Model: y = 3.4181 x-0.042

Spring

Constant

(Nm)

4.935

76.51

45.58

Period (s)

1.580.0024

0.4170.0007

0.5480.0001

8

54.55

0.5020.0009

3

Table 3: Group I Period vs. Spring Constant data table

AMPLITUDE vs. PERIOD

Amplitude Mathematical Model: y = -0.0004 x0.548

Amplitude

Period (s)

(cm)

3

0.5440.00059

5

0.5520.00034

7

0.5460.00017

9

0.5430.0016

Table 4: Group I Period vs. Amplitude data table

Group II:

Mass Mathematical Model: y = 0.1819 x0.2213

Mass (g)

Period (s)

10

0.296

20

0.376

50

0.419

100

0.487

150

0.542

200

0.593

250

0.637

Table 5: Group II Period vs. Mass table

Spring Constant Mathematical Model: y = 3.3726 x-0.498

Spring

Period

Constant

76

0.388

54

0.466

46.7

0.498

33

0.591

16.4

0.847

7.7

1.22

5.4

1.45

Table 6: Group II Period vs. Spring Constant table

Amplitude (cm)

Period (s)

3

0.59

5

0.597

8

0.595

10

0.502

12

0.546

13

0.591

15

0.667

17

0.587

Table 7: Group II Period vs. Amplitude data table

Group III:

Mass Mathematical Model: y = 0.1039 x0.4668

Mass (g)

Period (s)

50

0.646

90

0.844

110

0.926

130

1.01

150

1.08

Table 8: Group III Period vs. Mass data table

Spring Constant Mathematical Model: y = 3.4181 x-0.482

Spring Constant

Period (s)

(Nm)

5

0.258

58.4

0.850

75.6

0.759

Table 9: Group III Period vs. Spring constant data table

Amplitude Mathematical Model: y = 0.8498 x0.0021

Amplitude (cm)

Period (s)

5

0.858

10

0.853

15

0.884

20

0.855

1

0.849

Table 10: Group III Period vs. Amplitude data table

In this experiment, we observed the relationship between period of an oscillating spring/mass

system and the 3 factors that affect it: the mass of the hanging weight, the spring constant of the

spring and the amplitude of motion (the distance the spring is stretched).

After analyzing the data, it becomes clear that the period of a pendulum is affected by the mass

of the hanging weight and the spring constant. As we increased the mass of the hanging weight,

the period of oscillation increased too. On the other hand, as we increased the spring constant of

the spring, the period of oscillation decreased. However, the amplitude of oscillation has no

effect on the period (within reasonable error); as we increased the amplitude (the distance the

spring was stretched) and performed the trials, the period remained constant.

Figure 1 shows the graph of the mass of the hanging weight/bob vs. the period of the pendulum.

The slope of the curve is increasing, which means that as the x variable increases, the y variable

increases as well. This shows that and period is affected by the mass. Increasing the mass will

increase the period. For example, the period of the pendulum when the mass is 230 g is

significantly larger than the period when the mass is 50 g. It consistently increases.

Figure 2 show the graph of the spring constant of the spring used vs. the period of the pendulum.

The slope of the curve is decreasing in this case, so we can determine that contrary to the case of

the mass, increasing the length of string decreases the period of the pendulum. This indirect

relationship is clear and easy to notice, especially in the first 2 data points. The difference

between the periods of a spring constant of 4.9 and a spring constant of 54.5 is significant. This

proves that the spring used (spring constant) actually does have an effect of the period of a

pendulum.

Figure 3 shows the graph of the mass of the hanging weight/bob vs. the amplitude. The line is a

straight line with a slight slope (only due to error). According to mathematical model/equation

for the graph, the slope is -0.0004 which is really close to 0. The line perfectly fits all of the data

points. This linear relationship shows that changing the amount you stretch the spring does not

have any effect on the period of the pendulum. The period when you stretch the same spring 3

cm is very close to the period when you stretch the spring 9 cm. The difference is negligible

(only 0.001 cm).

Data from another 2 other groups was collected to compare our results against, and to help

validate and make our conclusion stronger with more evidence. Tables 5, 6 and 7 show the data

collected by group II for the 3 setups. The results are not in a graphical form, but we can see that

as the mass increases, period increases, as the spring constant increases, period decreases and

there is no relation between the period and the amplitude; changing the amplitude does nothing

to the period. This validates the claims we made in the above paragraphs. The data is very similar

to the data collected by our group, group I.

Tables8, 9 and 10 show the data collected by another group (group III). We can see the same

patterns in that data as well. This makes our claim stronger.

The three mathematical models are similar as well. The mathematical models for all three

experiments are:

Mass

Spring Constant

Amplitude

GROUP I

y = 0.0925x0.0805

y = 3.4181 x-0.042

y = -0.0004 x0.548

GROUP II

y = 0.1819 x0.2213

y = 3.3726 x-0.498

Not Available

GROUP III

y = 0.1039 x0.4668

y = 3.4181 x-0.482

0.8498 x0.0021

There are a few discrepancies in the data for the 3 groups. However, none of the errors are

significant enough to refute our claim. The 3 mathematical models are nearly identical, but there

is some error. This slight error could have been caused by a few factors. Possible factors are

discussed ahead.

There are barely any discrepancies in the data collected and graphed. None of the errors are

significant enough to impact our claim. The error bars are extremely small, so they have not been

included. The curves/lines pass through all of the points perfectly, without the need of error bars.

Any slight errors are likely due to error in the independent variables. The measurement of the

period could not have caused any errors as a photo gate device was used to minimize error. The

spring constant measurement could not have caused error either. However, the amplitude was

measured using a ruler and there could have been systematic error in measuring the exact

distance.

For the period vs. mass graph, the R2 value is 1, so that means the curve fits the points perfectly.

The R2 value for period vs. spring constant graph is 0.99 which is very close to a perfect value of

1. But the R2 value for the period vs. amplitude graph isnt as close to 1 as these two. It is 0.0831.

There is more error here than in the previous 2 cases, but not that much.

In the experiment, it was assumed that air resistance is minimal, so this must have very slightly

affected the data. This was one of the assumptions we made. The data would have been more

consistent and accurate if this was performed in a vacuum, however, that is not possible for us.

Working in a college laboratory leads to certain constrains in data collection. For example, if this

experiment was performed in an environment that allowed a greater range of spring constants to

be used, the data would be more accurate, and we could observe the trends using more spring

constants. The general result would have been the same, but there would be significantly less

error. Another factor that could have led to better experimentation would be the measurement of

the amplitude. In a more professional laboratory, this could be done using special setups and

measurement tools that are more precise and accurate than a simple ruler.

Conclusion:

The hypothesis for the mass of the weight and spring constant were supported, but our

hypothesis for the amplitude was proved wrong. We predicted that the amplitude (amount the

spring is stretched) would affect the period of the pendulum, but that is not true. The amplitude

had no effect on the period since the graph of period vs. amplitude was linear. Therefore, a new

hypothesis would be: The period of a spring/mass system is related to the mass of the weight and

spring constant, but not related to the amplitude of oscillation.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.