4.

1 Activity: Length Effects on the Frequency of a Pendulum

Data Analysis:

Table 1. Time (s) taken for 10 oscillations at systematically increasing pendulum lengths (cm)
Time (0.5 s) taken for 10 oscillations
Length of Pendulum ( 0.3 cm) 10 20 30 40 50
Trial 1 5.6 8.3 10.0 11.8 13.5
Trial 2 5.4 8.1 10.2 12.0 13.5
Trial 3 5.3 8.1 10.2 11.8 13.3
Sample Calculations

Data used to calculate frequency is from Trial 1 of a pendulum length of 10 (refer to Table 1).

Data for the frequency calculations and error propagation is from Trial 1 of a pendulum with a length
of 10 cm (refer to Table 1).

Frequency Uncertainty of Frequency

# 1 #osc time
1 = = +
1 #osc
10 0.1 0.5
1 = 1 = 1.785714 ( + )
5.6 10 5.6
1 = 1.785714 1 = 0.177295

1 = 1.8 0.2
Data for the average calculations and error propagation is taken from the previously calculated
frequencies from Trial 1

Average Average Uncertainty

sum of Trials 1 sum of absolute uncertainties
1 = = 100
# of Trials 1 sum of Trials

1.79 + 1.85 + 1.89 1 0.1777 + 0.1897 + 0.1972

1 = = 100
3 1 5.53
1 = 1.84 1 = 10.2119% 1.84
Average Frequency = 1.8 0.2

Table 2. Summary Table of the Average Frequency Calculations with their corresponding
uncertainties.
Length of Pendulum (cm)
10 20 30 40 50
Average Frequency (Hz) 1.80.2 1.220.07 0.990.04 0.840.03 0.740.02
Graph

Figure 1. Average Frequency (Hz) versus Length of the Pendulum

(cm)
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Frequency (Hz)

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
y = 6.3721x-0.55
Length (cm) R = 0.9998

Figure 2. Average Frequency (Hz) versus 1/Length-1/2 of a

2.5
pendulum (1/cm-1/2)

1.5
Frequency (Hz)

0.5
y = 7.9041x - 0.4245
y = 4.429x + 0.1574

y = (6 2)x - (0.1 0.1)

0
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
1/Length-1/2 (1/cm-1/2)
Conclusion:

The length of the pendulum, when increased in systematic increments (10.0 0.3 cm, 20.0 0.3
cm, 30.0 0.3 cm, 40.0 0.3 cm, 50.0 0.3 cm), had an inverse square root relationship with the
frequency of the same pendulum. This can be seen in Figure 1. where the graph shows a negative
relationship, with a power trendline of -0.561. There is a strong relationship as seen by the R2 value
being very close to one. To compare the results in this experiment to the literature value, the equation
to find the period (T) using the length of the pendulum (L) and the acceleration of gravity, which is
approximately 980.581 cm s-2 in Kitchener, can be rearranged to find the frequency (Hz) of a pendulum
given the length.

= 2

1
=
2
= (4.98381)(1/2 )
When comparing the results of the literature value to the calculated value in this experiment.
When replacing the x value in the equation for the line of best fit (refer to Figure 2.) with the 1/L1/2,
because this is the correct x value in the linearized graph, the following equations can be created.

= (6 2) + (0.1 0.1)

= (6 2)1/2 + (0.1 0.1)

The slope of the literature value falls within the uncertainty of the slope for the calculated
equation. The y intercept, which is zero in the case of the literature value, also falls within the
uncertainty of the y intercept of the calculated value. Although the values fall within the literature value
when calculating the percentage error, it is seen that it is too big to consider the results accurate. The
64.9831
percentage error of the experimental values was approximately 100% | 4.9831
| 20.4%. This is not
an acceptable percentage error, even accounting with the low precision of the measuring devices.

Evaluation:

Although the relationships seen in this experiment had strong correlations, the percentage error
calculated was too high to reliably call the results accurate. There was a myriad of errors in the method
and set-up of the experiment which left room for systematic errors to occur and affect the data
collected. One such systematic error that occurred during the experiment would happen after releasing
the mass. The pendulum stand would shake every time the mass swung to the trough and crest. This led
to inaccurate results due to the movement and disturbance of the oscillations during the data collection.
This error was systematic as it occurred during all our trials and conditions and did not occur randomly,
but instead due to poor set up of equipment. A possible solution to this systematic error would be to
replace the stand the pendulum swings on and instead have the pendulum hanging from a bar or
platform. This removes this systematic error as it removes the instrument, the stand, which was creating
the external disturbance. This would decrease the chances of external forces affecting the oscillations of
the pendulum.

Another limitation of this lab that occurred would be use one long piece of string and adjust the
length using screws. In this experiment, the string was looped around to and the accuracy was based on
the increments of the loops. If instead the measurement of the string was first found by adjusting and
fixing into a place by a screw or other device, this would allow for greater precision. This was a
systematic error as this method, looping the string, was used through out the experiment for all the
trials and conditions. This led inaccurate measurements and therefore inaccurate results. The solution
would remove the subjective nature that was present when looping the string.