Physics write up
Aim/hypothesis
The aim of this experiment was to find an experimental value for gravity
with graphical analysis of data obtained using the formula for the motion
of a simple pendulum.
Apparatus:
Metre ruler
Stopwatch or phone timer
Pendulum bob / small ball with hole through the centre (mass does not
matter as long as it is enough for air resistance to be negligible)
String (>70cm)
Retort stand with clamp
Protractor
Marker or tape for marking length
Methodology:
1. Thread the string through the centre of the ball (tie a suitably large
knot at the end to ensure the ball does not slide off the string)
2. Using the 1m ruler, measure a 30 cm distance from the centre of
the ball and mark this length on the string
3. Tie the string onto a clamp stand such that a) the ball does not
collide with anything when moving and b) the 30 cm mark shows
the fixed point of the pendulum
4. Holding protractor with the 90 degree mark perpendicular to the
fixed point of the pendulum and holding the ball such that the string
is taut, pull the pendulum bob to an angle of 10 degrees from the 90
degree angle on the protractor keeping this angle constant with
each repeat of the experiment
5. Simultaneously release the ball (without pushing) and start the
timer
6. Count 5 oscillations of the pendulum and stop the timer at the end
of the 5th one
7. Record data and repeat step 4 and 6 twice more for 30 cm
8. Repeat step 2 to 8 but with 40, 50, 60 and 70 centimetres each
time.
Variables for experiment
The independent variable was the length l of the string (m), changed by
measuring different lengths for the experiment.
The dependent variable was the time taken for one oscillation of the
pendulum (s), measured with a phone timer.
The controlled variables and their justifications are listed as follows:
Mass of pendulum bob: The mass was kept the same by using the same
bob each time; although it is not used in the equation, it can affect other
factors such as energy loss.
Release angle: The release angle was kept the same by carefully
measuring it with a protractor each time because it directly affects the
time taken per oscillation for the pendulum.
Type, texture and thickness of the string: These three properties of the
string were controlled by using the same string each time. This is
controlled because certain string types may stretch more than others, and
the thickness/texture of the string can affect the air resistance generated.
Environment in which experiment was conducted: This was controlled by
conducting this experiment indoors under (roughly) the same room
conditions to ensure that wind currents and air drafts had a minimal
impact on the data.
Person timing: This was controlled by having the same person using the
timer every time because a) we had a person (due to limited time and
resources we could not invest in a motion sensor) and b) different people
timing would introduce different reaction time errors.
Person releasing the ball: This was controlled by having the same person
release the ball each time. This is because different people would have
slightly different ways of releasing the ball which would directly affect the
amount of velocity the ball begins with and by extension the results.
The raw, untransformed, unedited data is given here:
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
Length(cm) (s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
30 5.4 5.55 5.39 5.48 5.53
40 6 6 6.03 6.02 6.07
50 6.78 6.8 6.74 6.8 6.79
60 7.37 7.45 7.35 7.42 7.35
70 8.06 8.05 7.99 8.05 8.02
Note that the times given are for 5 oscillations and so I averaged them
then divided by 5
Avg
period
for one
Avg oscillati
time(s) on
5.47 1.09
6.024 1.20
6.782 1.36
7.388 1.48
8.034 1.61
After converting to SI units:
Avg
period
for one
oscillatio
Length(m) n(s)
0.3 1.09
0.4 1.20
0.5 1.36
0.6 1.48
0.7 1.61
I then graphed this and obtained the equation of the graph
Length of string vs period of oscillation
1.8
1.6
f(x) = 1.87877787145609 x^0.466250675584731
1.4
R² = 0.990578578980045
1.2
Period T(s)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Length of spring l(m)
The equation here indicates an approximate square root relationship
between the time taken per oscillation of the pendulum and the length of
the pendulum string (because the exponent here is ~0.47 or around ½)
To linearize the graph I took the square root of each length and plotted it
against period on a graph.
Linearized data given here:
Avg
period for
Square root of one
length(√m) oscillation
0.548 1.09
0.632 1.21
0.707 1.36
0.775 1.48
0.837 1.61
And graph of root length against period here:
Square root of length of string vs
period of oscillation
1.8
1.6
1.4 f(x) = 1.81538461538462 x + 0.079230769230769
1.2
Period T(s)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
Square root of length √l (√m)
Analysis
In the square root of length of string vs period of oscillation graph’s
equation there is a constant of 0.079 and in practice an error stemming
from reaction time or slight measurement error (because it is unrealistic to
have a non-0 period if the square root of the length of the string is 0 as
that would indicate the length of the string is also 0). Because it is
negligible in comparison to the √ l coefficient I have ignored it.
The equation, ignoring the constant, shows us that the time taken for one
oscillation of the pendulum is equal to the square root of the length of the
string multiplied by 1.80.
The equation for the movement of a simple pendulum is given as follows:
2π
T= √l
√g
Where T is the period or time taken for one oscillation, g is the strength of
the gravitational field and l is the length of the pendulum string.
Taking the equation on the graph T = 1.82√l, we see that the gradient of
= 3.45 ∴ g = 3.45
2π 2π
the graph is 1.82, which is then equal to , so√ g =
√g
² ~11.9 m s⁻².
1.82
This experimental value of gravity is slightly higher than the theoretical
value of ~9.81 m s⁻²; however, this can be attributed to multiple factors;
1. Slight inaccuracies in timing or release likely caused the measured
periods to be slightly smaller than their true values. Since the
period is inversely proportional to the calculated value of g, this
would increase the experimental value of g.
Although we controlled reaction time the best we could, the normal
human reaction time fluctuates between 200 and 250 milliseconds (0.2 to
0.25 seconds), and this would have introduced a random error into the
data obtained.
Conclusion
The experiment successfully demonstrated the relationship between
pendulum length and oscillation period. The data showed that the period
increases approximately proportionally to the square root of the pendulum
length, which matches the theoretical simple pendulum equation:
T =2 π
√ l
g
With analysis of the graph, the experimental value of gravitational field
strength was found to be ~11.9 m s⁻². Comparing this to the theoretical
value of gravity on earth, 9.81 m s⁻², there is a 21.3% difference. This
difference likely results from reaction time, string elasticity and force
applied to the pendulum bob upon release.
It is highly likely that a systematic error (for example elasticity of string) is
present because reaction time cannot explain a 21 percent difference in
the experimental and theoretical value for gravitational field strength.
Discussion
The range for the length of the pendulum string that we used was 0.3 to
0.7 metres in increments of 0.1m (0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7). This was the
chosen range because it seemed the most valid; anything below 0.3
metres would be affected significantly more by reaction time and small
measurement errors, while anything greater than 0.7 metres would’ve
been unrealistic based on our time constraints.
The key problems present were that :
1. Energy loss from the string and pendulum bob could not realistically
have been reduced further, and is not accounted for in the equation,
so there was likely some effect on the data.
2. Human reaction time created too large an impact on the shorter
lengths (evident in the discrepancy between the experimental value
for gravity derived from the first set of data and the rest), because it
accounted for a greater percentage of the time measured. This
would lead to the graph being skewed and the equation resultant
yielding an experimental value of gravity higher than any of the
data points individually.
The impacts that these problems generated could theoretically be reduced
or even eliminated, but this was unrealistic for us.
Were the experiment to be conducted in a vacuum system, there would be
no air resistance at all and the only energy loss due to friction would be at
the pivot point. This, however, would be too expensive and likely
unnecessary for the slight improvement in accuracy.
There are two main ways to reduce the impact of reaction time; a motion
sensor of some kind would completely remove reaction time issues, and
timing more oscillations would also lower the effect that reaction time has
on the results as it would take up a lower percentage of the time
measured. Timing more oscillations would theoretically increase energy
loss because of how much more the pendulum bob and string are moving,
but this would have a far less significant impact than that of human
reaction time.
A key problem that was consistently present was that it was hard to
measure the length of the string and then tie it to the clamp stand. This
was because of the way it was tied, such that both hands were needed
and it was hard to mark where the particular length in question ended on
the string. This was quickly overcome by tying it a different way and tying
it on the retort stand first and then loosening either of the sides of the
knot depending on whether the string was below or above the required
length.
Accuracy improving techniques:
Parallax error was minimized by ensuring measurements were read at eye
level when measuring the pendulum length and release angle. This was
necessary because introducing parallax error could have a significant
impact on the result.
Five oscillations were timed instead of one to account for human reaction
time. This reduced the percentage effect of human reaction time on the
data; using only one oscillation would make reaction time too great a
factor.
We always measured the pendulum bob from the centre of the bob,
placing the 0 cm mark (which, notably, is not on the very end of the ruler)
at the centre of the bob in order to reduce systematic errors in measuring.
Even small systematic errors could affect the calculated value of g.
Overall summary:
The experimental value of gravity was calculated to be ~11.9 m s⁻². This
is ~21.3% higher than the accepted theoretical value of gravitational field
strength. The difference is a result of multiple factors in the experiment
that were not and could not be accounted for in the calculations and
equation.
Overall, this result indicates that the experiment was relatively accurate
and the slight discrepancy was due to minor measurement errors and
reaction time.