THE PERIOD OF A PENDULUM

Introduction
It is thought that ‘Galileo’s Lamp’ can be modelled as a simple pendulum.
Theory suggests that for small amplitudes a simple pendulum has a period given by the
equation
T = 2π√(L/g)
In this investigation we will investigate the relationship of period, T and length, L.

Independent Variable
The length of the pendulum will be measured using a metre ruler (±1cm), measuring
between the attachment point and the centre of the bob.
The length will be varied between 0.10m and 0.50m in 0.05m intervals giving nine
values over a reasonable range.

Dependent Variable
The period will be measured using a stopwatch (±0.1s allowing for reaction time). The
pendulum will be pulled back and released. Once it is swinging steadily, the stopwatch
will be started as the pendulum passes the fiducial mark (on the clampstand in line with
the rest position). The time for ten complete oscillations will be measured, and then this
will be divided by ten to give the time for one oscillation

Other Variables
The equation shows that g is a variable. This will be controlled simply by conducting the
experiment in one location.
The equation is derived using a ‘small angle approximation’ and so the amplitude will be
kept small to keep the angle of deflection less than 10°.
The pendulum will be checked to see that it is isochronous. This will ensure that the
decreasing amplitude, due to damping, is not a factor, which affects the period.
The mass of the bob does not appear in the equation, but this will be kept constant to
eliminate this as a possible source of error.

Improving Accuracy
Random uncertainty will be reduced by measuring ten swings, and repeating each
measurement three times.
Systematic uncertainty will be reduced by starting and stopping the stopwatch as the
pendulum passes a fiducial mark (on the retort stand).
Results
All times measured to ± 0.1s

(half range)
10T /s (1)

10T /s (2)

10T /s (3)

(average)
10T /s
ΔL /m

Δ10T

ΔT /s
L/m

T /s
0.10 0.01 6.5 6.3 6.6 6.5 0.2 0.65 0.02
0.15 0.01 7.8 7.9 7.7 7.8 0.1 0.77 0.01
0.20 0.01 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.1 0.1 0.91 0.01
0.25 0.01 10.3 10.1 10.0 10.1 0.2 1.01 0.02
0.30 0.01 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 0.1 1.12 0.01
0.35 0.01 11.8 11.9 11.8 11.80 0.05 1.180 0.005
0.40 0.01 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.80 0.00 1.280 0.000
0.45 0.01 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.60 0.05 1.360 0.005
0.50 0.01 14.2 14.3 14.3 14.30 0.05 1.430 0.005
The uncertainty in T is found using the half range method.
As an example for l = 0.10m
Δ10T = (6.6 – 6.3)/2
= 0.2 (1 sig fig)
ΔT = 0.2/10
= 0.02s

Processed Data
(unrounded)

(rounded)
2ΔT(%)

ΔT2 /s2
ΔT(%)
ΔL /m

T2 / s2

T2 / s2
ΔT /s
L/m

T /s

0.10 0.01 0.65 0.02 3.1 0.423 6.2 0.42 0.03

0.15 0.01 0.77 0.01 1.3 0.593 2.6 0.59 0.02
0.20 0.01 0.91 0.01 1.1 0.828 2.2 0.83 0.02
0.25 0.01 1.01 0.02 2.0 1.020 4.0 1.02 0.04
0.30 0.01 1.12 0.01 0.9 1.254 1.8 1.25 0.02
0.35 0.01 1.180 0.005 0.4 1.392 0.8 1.39 0.01
0.40 0.01 1.280 0.000 0.0 1.638 0.0 1.64 0.00
0.45 0.01 1.360 0.005 0.4 1.850 0.8 1.85 0.01
0.50 0.01 1.430 0.005 0.3 2.045 0.6 2.05 0.01
2
The uncertainty in T was found using percentage uncertainty.
As an example for l = 0.10m
ΔT(%) = (0.02/0.65)x100
= 3.1%
2 x ΔT(%) = 6.2% (because we are calculating T2)
ΔT 2 = (6.2/100) x 0.423
= 0.03s2 (1 sig fig)
Graph
The graph, with appropriate error bars, gave a straight line through the origin with a
gradient of 4.10s2m-1. The error lines (drawn by hand) gave a maximum gradient of
4.24s2m-1. The gradient can therefore be quoted as 4.1+ 0.1 s2m-1.

Period of Pendulum

2.5

2
period squared/s2

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
length/m

Conclusion
The aim of the experiment was to confirm that
T = 2π√(L/g)
which could be written
T2 = (4π2/g) x L
The results gave the equation
T2 = (4.1+0.1) x L
which is of the same form.
The relative uncertainty in the gradient is 2.4% (which is significantly less than 10%)
suggesting that this is a valid relationship.
If we consider the gradient, then we can calculate a value for g.
grad = 4π2/g
g = 4π2/4.1
= 9.6 + 0.2 ms-2
With the 2.4% uncertainty this gives a value close the accepted value of 9.8 ms-2
Evaluation of the Experiment
The above discussion shows that the theoretical equation is a valid representation of
the motion of a pendulum, with an agreement of 97.6%.
This is not surprising as the uncertainty in the raw data showed that all measurements
were to a high level of precision. Despite the use of basic equipment, this experiment
was most successful.
However, there are limitations in this experiment when it is considered as a model for
‘Galileo’s Lamp’. The simple pendulum consists of a light string and a small dense bob.
The lamp is a larger more open structure hanging on a heavy chain. The structure of
the lamp is not a major concern as we can still consider its centre of mass, but the mass
of the chain could be significant in the motion of the lamp. Even without the lamp
attached it is likely that the chain would swing with its own SHM. The lamp is clearly a
more complicated system than the simple pendulum, and while it is likely that length will
affect the period, it might be modelled by a different equation. It would be interesting to
investigate a pendulum with a massive chain, to model Galileo’s lamp more closely.
When considering the details of this experiment the worst result was the measurement
of the shortest length, with a 10% uncertainty. This was due to the decision to measure
the length to + 1cm, which proved more practical with the available equipment.
The measurements of period were facilitated by the use of a fiducial mark, and proved
to be to a high level of precision. The largest relative uncertainty was only 3.1%, and
again this was for the shortest length, and thus the smallest period.
The original equation was derived using a small angle approximation, and the amplitude
was kept small, to ensure that this did not affect the results. The experiment could be
developed by looking into the possible effect of amplitude on period.