93%(15)14 out of 15 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 8 out of 8 pages.
15% can be considered to be accurate, despite their discrepancies due to random and systemic error. In PART 4 of the experiment, the period was examined using different masses at different amplitudes. The experimental values were determined using the time it took to carry out the 50 vibrations. These values were then compared with the calculated values, which were determined using the equation:For the 0.2 kg mass suspended at 0.05 m, the experimental value of the period was determined to be 1.132 seconds, which was then compared with the calculated value of 1.189 seconds. This comparison yielded a percent discrepancy of 4.79%, well within the 15% range of accurate data. For the 0.2 kg mass suspended at 0.1 m, the experimental value of the period was determined to be 1.1238 seconds, with the calculated value of 1.189 seconds. This comparison yielded a percent discrepancy of 5.48%, which again was well within the 15% range of reliable data. Finally, for the 0.1 kg mass suspended at 0.05 m, the experimental value of the period was determined to be 0.8442 seconds, while the calculated value was 0.7399 seconds. This comparison yielded a percent discrepancy of 14.09%, which is just within the 15% range for trusted data.Throughout the experiment, there were several potential sources of error. First, in terms of the apparatus, it is possible that the edge from which the pendulum was suspended was at an incline which would result in skewed data, and possibly suggest that the force of gravity was greater than it actually was. This potential risk could be solved by using a more sturdy apparatus or by using a leveler. Moreover,when counting cycles in order to determine the period, in both the spring and the pendulum there was no exact method to determine the cycles. By simply watching and counting, there is a possibility that all cycles were not the same distance from the equilibrium point, which would either raise or lower the total time in a period. This concern could be fixed using machine such as a light gate to more accurately obtain the data. In terms of human error, it is possible that the timer was started prematurely or possiblyeven late, which would increase or decrease the length of the period, even by microseconds. Another possibility could have been the potential miscounting of cycles, which would also affect the length of the period. These human errors could have been rectified by performing multiple trials to ensure consistencyin the data.