LAB:

Pendulum

Fe

Conclusion
From the graph it can be seen that T2 is proportional to the length. Since the gr
linear, the acceleration will be constant. So we can apply ( = 2

!
!

).

!!

However, in our experiment the equation is !.!.!! = because we squared the t

!!!

period. The gradient of the line can be deduced to be ! where a is the accelera
earth (gravity). The gradient on the graph is 3.6038m.s-2 so the acceleration wi
10.95 m. s-2

The uncertainty in the gradient can be found from the steepest and least steep

!!!

Max value for the acceleration= !.! =10.66 m. s-2

!!!

Min value for the acceleration= !.! = 11.96 m. s-2

Uncertainty=(Max-Min)/2=0.65 m. s-2

The final value obtained for the acceleration is 10.950.65 m. s-2

The value that we were supposed to get for the acceleration was 9.81 m.s-2 bec
acceleration is equalled to the gravity which is 9.81 m.s-2 established by the 3rd
Conference on Weights and Measures . However, even with the uncertainty (0
2), the results obtained dont match with the actual theoretical acceleration for
pendulum.

Evaluation

As we saw in the conclusion, our final result for the acceleration of the pendulu
match with the theoretical acceleration. This inaccurate result is due to severa
mistakes. The first mistake, which had led to a lack of accuracy, was that we re
the time. Even though we repeated 5 times for each length, it was really hard fo
stop the timer directly after the mass reached the 10th oscillations. Moreover, a
see in the graph, the best fit line doesnt go trough the origin, that means there
systematics errors. What could affect our experiment, was how the experiment
up. The way that the experiment was set up couldnt tell us exactly when it had
the 10th oscillation or if the amplitude for the mass was the same for every leng
though the equipments were precise (ruler in mm, timer in mms). As we could
results are quiet precise (for each length the results are close to each other) to
been measured by humans but they are inaccurate, to be more accurate we sho
done more trials to try to eliminate humans inaccuracy. The systematics and ra
errors have led to big final uncertainty.
Despite that we didnt get the actual theoretical result, our experiment has som
strength. The graph shows a trend, it is clearly a straight line, which passes trou
the errors bars. This means that we have been able to show the relation betwee
time period squared and the length of a pendulum. Furthermore we have been
keep the controlled variable because we didnt change the mass, we kept the sa
and we did the entire experiment in the same laboratory. Finally, we can see th
data points lie very close to the best-fit line with a few small deviations.

LAB: Pendulum

Felix Hovine

Improvements


The method that we used didnt give the perfect results. The weak point of this
experiment was the positioning of the ball (amplitude) and the counting of the
oscillation. The mechanism could have been more accurate if we have used the
movement sensor. With the movement sensor, it would have shown us the exact
amplitude or if we had used a vernier calliper, it could reduce the uncertainty. However,
we struggled to hold the ball at the same amplitude, so using a movement sensor or a
vernier calliper would be pointless if we didnt improve the support. So we have to
improve the support by having a better marker and something to hold the mass for us
like a mass holder( fig.1)
A bigger range of values is often seen as a good way to reduce the uncertainty. So
instead of increasing by 5 cm, we should do by 10 cm.

Mass holder (fig.1)

LAB: Pendulum

Felix Hovine