Research question: How does the change of a pendulum’s length (30.0, 40.0, 50.0, 60.
0 and
70.0), measured with a one-meter ruler {±0.0005m}, affect its period, thus
evidencing Earth’s gravitational field strength g of 9.81 m/s²?
Introduction
A simple pendulum, as defined by Britannica1, consists of a
bob of mass suspended at the end of a thread of length 𝑙 that
is so light as to be considered massless. The pendulum also
moves in a simple harmonic motion, which is an oscillatory
and constant movement where the restoring force is
proportional to the displacement, and forces such as friction
and air resistance are disconsidered. In the case of a simple
pendulum, its maximum displacement will maintain a constant
value, as shown in Image 1.
In a simple harmonic motion, kinetic energy reaches a maximum at the equilibrium point, equalling
the gravitational potential energy, which peaks at the maximas. A common real-life example of a
simple pendulum is a playground swing, where the seat attached to chains swings back and forth
under the influence of gravity and the angle in which the period begins. In the case of this
experiment, much like with a swing, a fully simple pendulum cannot virtually be replicated, due to
the inevitable loss of motion caused by friction and air resistance. Some measures can be taken,
however, to minimize the noticeable effects of these variables, such as reducing the angle θ to
have small dislocation from the equilibrium point, in which θ = 0. The string will have a given
length 𝑙 and will be displaced with its bob of mass 𝑚 through a vertical angle, where it oscillates
with a time period, 𝑇. The equation for a simple pendulum is represented as:
𝑙
𝑇 = 2π 𝑔
(Equation 1)
Where:
𝑇 = 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 (𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑠)
𝑙 = 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠)
𝑔 = 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑚/𝑠²)
With the expansion of such equation, the aim of the experiment, which is to prove the value of 𝑔 as
being 9,81 m/s² (literature value provided by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation) by recording
the time period of the pendulum’s oscillation, can be implemented , thus authenticating or
invalidating the reliability of the investigation, depending on how close the calculated value is to its
literature version. Such processing of data can be accomplished with the linearization of Equation
1, in the form of 𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝐶. Therefore:
2
2 2 𝑙 2 4π
𝑇 = 4π 𝑔
⇒ 𝑇 = 𝑔
· 𝑙 (Equation 2)
2
4π
Where 𝑔
is equal to 𝑚, the gradient of the equation.
1
[Link]
1
2
4π
𝑔= 𝑚
(Equation 3)
The exact extent, however, to which results will vary from the wanted literature value, must be
diminished; where the right materials and methodologies are applied, taking into deep
consideration the dependent, independent and controlled variables of the system being observed,
resulting in the providence of reliable data.
Methodology
1. Gather the equipment, consisting of:
- 1 clamp stand (to hold the pendulum)
- 1 rigid support (to provide a fixed point of rotation and increase the predictability of
the pendulum)
- 1 string of at least 70.0 cm (part of the pendulum, coiled/uncoiled around the clamp
stand to decrease/increase in size)
- 1 elastic band (to lock the string in place)
- 2 digital stop watches (to time the period, with an uncertainty of ±0.2 seconds, using
two of them to speed up the process of data collection)
- 1 meter ruler (to measure the length of the string, with an uncertainty of ±0.05cm)
- 1 protractor (to measure the angle in which the pendulum is released in, with an
uncertainty of ±0.5°)
- 1 weight of 0.10131 ±0.00001kg, measured in a digital scale (unnecessary step)
- 1 mass hanger (to attach to the sting and hold the weight)
2. Cut and measure the length of the inextensible string with the meter ruler (±0.05cm),
presenting a required length of at least 70.0 cm, as well as the mass hanger, which will be
added to the overall length of the pendulum.
3. Set up the pendulum, coiling the string around the clamp, which is attached to the rigid
support, locking it in place with the rubber band and tying the mass hanger with the bob of
metal to the very end of the string, leaving it at an initial length of 70.0 cm, starting from the
pivot point to the center of mass of the bob, measured with the meter ruler (±0.05cm).
4. Displace the pendulum at an angle of 10.0°, with the assistance of the protractor (±0.5°),
while ensuring that the amplitude of the oscillation is not affected by the string not being
released in a straight line, thus causing it to curve or spiral, which can be avoided by
marking a reference point on the surface below the equilibrium position.
5. Release the pendulum without applying any additional force, as doing so would increase
the amplitude, but in an inconsistent manner.
6. Start the digital stopwatches as soon as the pendulum is released from its maxima
position.
7. Stop and record the times taken for 15 oscillations.
8. Repeat the process once more for further accuracy, resulting in four different trials per
length.
9. Change the length of the string by coiling it around the clamp and securing its extent with
the elastic band and measuring it with the meter ruler.
10.Repeat the entire procedure for the desired lengths of 70.0 cm, 60.0 cm, 50.0 cm, 40.0
cm and 30.0 cm.
Once undergoing any experiment, safety must be taken into deep consideration. In the case of this
particular experiment, however, the use of safety precautions such as goggles won’t be a
necessary measurement to be taken, as there are no significant risks involved with the apparatus
2
or methodology. This is because the materials are mostly lightweight, and objects that may be
considered sharp or hazardous to the touch aren’t included in the list of equipment. Nevertheless,
some precautions must be taken to avoid dropping materials to the ground, as the bob will be
suspended in the air, held by a string. The use of the elastic band is required to avoid the
occurrence of such an unwanted accident, ensuring the pendulum is locked in place.
There are no environmental or ethical considerations to be taken into this investigation.
Variables
Independent Variable: The length of the pendulum, which is measured from the pivot to the
center of mass of the bob (70.0 cm, 60.0 cm, 50.0 cm, 40.0 cm and 30.0 cm). The extension of the
pendulum is measured in cm with a meter ruler, which has an uncertainty of ±0.05cm. The length
of the string was preferred not to go below 30.0 cm, since that would lead to quicker oscillations
and larger inaccuracies in timing.
Dependent Variable: The period of the pendulum, which is the time taken for the pendulum to
complete 15 oscillations. The reasoning behind the choice of timing being 15 oscillations is
because the error per oscillation would appear much smaller, thus increasing the accuracy of data.
The motive for the period of the pendulum not surpassing the amount suggested is because the
pendulum will gradually slow down due to air resistance and friction at the pivot. Therefore,
keeping the number of oscillations at 15 avoids too much displacement from being lost, tampering
with the reliability of the experiment.
Controlled Variables:
● The number of oscillations must be controlled, as varying the amount of oscillations to a
number that isn’t 15 will cause the total time measured to not be directly comparable
between the different pendulum lengths. On that account, a quantity of 15 oscillations must
be kept and timed for each trial throughout the experiment.
● The mass of the bob, measured with a digital scale, is 0.10131 ±0.00001kg, and it must
remain controlled, since, even though mass shouldn’t be a changing factor to the period of
a simple pendulum, using different masses in this realistic situation could introduce
differences in air resistance or friction, slightly changing the period and reducing the
accuracy of the experiment. Hence, the mass must be kept constant, by using the same
metal bob and mass hanger throughout the experiment..
● The angle of release, measured with a protractor, must remain at a constant value of 10.0°
±0.5°. The purpose for such a small degree of displacement being applied to the pendulum
is because it is small enough that the relationship between the period of the pendulum and
the length of the string is approximately linear, significantly increasing the predictability of
the motion. The angle is kept constant in order to guarantee that only the effect of string
length on the period is being measured. Varying the angle would completely change the
period. To maintain control, the angle must be marked and reused through the trials.
● The type of string, which in the case of this experiment, is an inextensible cotton twine,
must be controlled; as different strings present different types of friction and elasticity, which
would negatively affect the reliability of data collection when using a variation of different
strings in the experiment, rather than simply relying on one string type.
● The method of release must also be managed, where no additional force is applied to the
pendulum, which would completely defy the purpose of replicating a simple harmonic
motion, where there must be an equal balance of kinetic and gravitational potential energy
as the motion takes place. In order to control such a variable, the pendulum must be gently
3
released from the set angle, by the same person with the same method, avoiding any type
of push.
Data Analysis
The information provided in the introduction, along with the comprehension of Equations 1,2 and
3, gives clear guidance on how to effectively process the data collected from the multiple trials of
the replicated simple pendulum, which will later be applied to calculating the value of 𝑔. The
experiment was effectively able to provide the following measurements:
Table 1
Average Period and Difference Between Highest and Lowest Time Values for Each Length
Average Difference
period for 15 highest vs.
Length Time Trial 1 Time Trial 2 Time Trial 3 Time Trial 4 oscillations lowest values
(±0.0005m) (±0.2s) (±0.2s) (±0.2s) (±0.2s) (±0.2s) for time (s)
0.700 25.47 25.68 25.31 25.54 25.50 0.37
0.600 23.34 23.28 23.28 23.38 23.32 0.10
0.500 21.25 21.37 21.44 21.28 21.34 0.19
0.400 18.84 18.66 18.85 19.03 18.85 0.37
0.300 16.34 16.41 16.25 16.44 16.36 0.19
Average diff. 0.24
By examining the table, what immediately comes to notice is the decrease of the average period
for 15 oscillations as the length of the pendulum also decreases. This means that larger lengths
lead to longer periods. The average was calculated by using the following mean equation:
𝑠𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠
𝑥̄ = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠
(Equation 4)
Utilizing all four trials for the period for 15 oscillations of a 0.700 m pendulum as an example, the
following result is provided:
25.47+25.68+25.31+25.54
4
= 25. 50𝑠
The overall accuracy of the experiment, particularly regarding the human reaction time, comes into
question, since starting the timer as soon as the pendulum is released and pausing it once it
completes its final oscillation introduces potential error. This is further evidenced once analyzing
the varying differences for the highest and lowest values for time for each length. A fluctuation of
high and low results can be seen, where the difference between the longest and shortest trials
reach a low of 0.10 seconds (0.600m) and a high of 0.37 seconds (both 0.700m and 0.400m). On
average, the value for difference is 0.24 seconds.
Due to the unpredictability of reaction time, supported by the data in the table, research was
conducted, leading to the conclusion provided by Tutor Chase that human reaction times can vary,
typically in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, meaning that when using a stopwatch to time an event,
the measurement should have an uncertainty of at least ±0.2 seconds. Such a value can be
considered high under the circumstances of this investigation, but is far from being detrimental to
4
the overall accuracy of the final value of 𝑔, which must be approximate to 9.81 m/s². The same
statement can be made about the uncertainty for the pendulum’s length, which is at a low value of
±0.0005m. It is not at its greatest level of reliability, however, due to the naked-eye visualization of
the value shown in the ruler, which is largely considered to have an uncertainty of ±0.05 cm.
Graph 1
The graph above proves that an increase in length results in an increase in the period. The
absolute uncertainty of ±0.2 provided for reaction time is also visually proven to not be significant,
as the error bars are small and do not overlap in a way that would affect the understanding of the
trend.
By following the equation provided in the graph, for every 1 meter increase in the pendulum’s
length, the period increases by 22.8 seconds. Hence, the time for 15 oscillations has an
approximate increase of 2.28 ±0.2s for every 0.100 ±0.0005 m increase, which is further supported
2
by the very strong linear correlation of 𝑅 = 0. 998, which also serves as proof for the reliability and
overall accuracy of the experiment and data gathering, since the correlation is extremely close to 1.
The relationship between the axis, however, is not directly proportional; as the line doesn’t meet
the point of origin. This serves as a conflicting attribute to the graph, specially for lower lengths,
since it is suggested that when the length of the pendulum is 0 m, the period should theoretically
be 9.69 seconds long, which makes no practical sense. Therefore, a linear trendline was applied to
data that realistically follows a non-linear relationship. Such affirmation can be justified with
𝑙
Equation 1 (𝑇 = 2π 𝑔
), which demonstrates that the period is only proportional to the square
root of the length. The selected lengths of 0.300, 0.400, 0.500, 0.600 and 0.700 m are large
enough so that the curve of the square root function seems almost linear.
By comprehending the relationship of length and time period when it comes to a pendulum
following simple harmonic motion, the following step towards finding the value of 𝑔 can be put into
5
effect, which involves finding the average period per oscillation, along with its varying percentage
uncertainties:
Table 2
Average Period per Oscillation and Percentage Uncertainties
Average period for
Length 15 oscillations Average period Uncertainty for
(±0.0005m) (±0.2s) per oscillation (s) average (%)
0.700 25.50 1.700 0.78
0.600 23.32 1.555 0.86
0.500 21.34 1.422 0.94
0.400 18.85 1.256 1.06
0.300 16.36 1.091 1.22
The value of 𝑇 for each length can easily be found, by performing a division of 15 from the average
period for 15 oscillations (±0.2s). Using the 0.700 pendulum as an example, the following result
can be acquired:
25.50
15
= 1. 700𝑠
For the uncertainty of the average period per oscillation, however, a different measurement had to
be taken. The human reaction uncertainty remained ±0.2s for 15 oscillations, and an absolute
uncertainty of ±0.0133s was found for the average period per oscillation, by also dividing ±0.2 by
15. Since the same absolute uncertainty affects smaller values more significantly, the percentage
uncertainty was calculated for each different length, proven to be a more reliable resource. The
method used to calculate the values utilized the equation below:
∆𝑇 𝑓𝑜𝑟 15 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
% 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 𝑇 𝑓𝑜𝑟 15 𝑜𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
· 100 (Equation 5)
Which, by using the data collected for the 0.700 m pendulum, the following results are provided
0.2
25.50
· 100
0. 0078 · 100 = 0. 78%
The percentage uncertainty was at its highest for the shortest pendulum length (1.2%). This
information will be reliable for the analysis of uncertainties in the experiment. Since the software
used to create the graphs doesn’t offer a way of adding a percentage uncertainty for each
individual data point, the biggest percentage uncertainty provided, 1.2%, was applied across all
data points in the graph, so that the error bars aren’t underestimated. Once graphing, more
accurate error bars can be seen, demonstrated in the following:
6
Graph 2
Even though the error bars seem significantly larger in the increased values for the average period,
2
the linearization of values and the correlation of 𝑅 = 0. 998 still suggest a high reliability in the
data collected. Even though applying an uncertainty of 1.2% to every point misrepresents the data,
since the percentage uncertainties should decrease with longer pendulum lengths, It is clear why
such a decision would be more accurate than a constant absolute uncertainty of ±0.0133s, as
doing so would overestimate the uncertainty in longer periods and underestimate it in shorter ones.
By also following the information presented in Graph 2, it can be observed through the gradient
equation that for every 1 meter increase in the pendulum’s length, the average period increases by
1.52 seconds. Therefore, there is an approximate 0.015 second increase for every 0.100
±0.0005m added to the pendulum’s length.
With the uncovering of the value for 𝑇, Equations 2 and 3 can finally be applied to find the value of
2
𝑔, which begins through the calculation of 𝑇 and its uncertainties:
Table 3
Average Period per Oscillation Squared and Percentage/Absolute Uncertainties
Average period per Absolute uncertainty
Length oscillation squared Uncertainty for for period squared
(±0.005m) (s²) average (%) (s²)
0.700 2.890 1.569 ±0.0453
0.600 2.417 1.715 ±0.0415
0.500 2.023 1.875 ±0.0379
0.400 1.578 2.123 ±0.0335
0.300 1.190 2.445 ±0.0291
7
For finding the average period per oscillation squared and calculating its percentage uncertainties
for each desired length, it is necessary to perform a multiplication of the uncertainty with the
exponent. Therefore, the percentage doubles as the period per oscillation is squared, shown
below:
2
𝑇⇒𝑇
%∆𝑇 ⇒ %∆𝑇 + %∆𝑇
Using the 0.700m pendulum as an example:
2
1. 700 ⇒ 1. 700 = 2. 890𝑠²
0. 78% ⇒ 0. 78% + 0. 78% = 1. 57%
For uncovering the absolute uncertainty for each respective period, the following equation had to
be applied and exemplified once again with the 0.700m pendulum:
% 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦
𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = ( 100
) · 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 (Equation 6)
Therefore:
1.57
𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = ( 100
) · 2. 890
2
𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = ±0. 045 𝑠
2
Following the finding of 𝑇 , results must be illustrated in a graph, so that the gradient 𝑚 can be
found and processed through Equation 3, which leads to the aim of the investigation, which is
finding the value of 𝑔 and having it as close to 9.81 m/s² as possible:
Graph 3
8
In the graph above, the linearized Equation 2 is visualized, presenting the relationship between
2
the average period per oscillation squared 𝑇 and the length 𝑙 of the pendulum as being linear and
almost directly proportional (not completely because of the -0.1 systematic error), with an
2
extremely strong linear correlation of 𝑅 = 0. 999. This validates the accuracy of the data
processed and the trustworthiness of the gradient and value of 𝑚 being equal to 4.24, shown in the
equation. Consequently, for every 1 meter increase in the pendulum’s length, the period increases
by 4.24 s², meaning there is an approximate 0.42 s² increase for every 0.100 ±0.0005m added to
the pendulum’s length.
Much like in Graph 2, the largest percentage uncertainty was applied to every single data point,
which was doubled to 2.4%. While being a larger percentage, the range of the error bars don’t
demonstrate a clear concern for accuracy, instead appearing mostly controlled and at an ordinary
size, even with the larger periods. The inclusion of the steepest and shallowest gradient exist to
find the percentage uncertainty for 𝑚, which will be useful for uncovering 𝑔’s percentage
uncertainty. The points for both gradients were found through the addition and subtraction of the
biggest and smallest absolute uncertainties from the maximum and minimum average periods per
oscillation squared:
2. 280 ± 0. 045 ⇒ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2. 935, 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 2. 845
1. 190 ± 0. 029 ⇒ 𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1. 219, 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 1. 160
With the uncovering of the value for 𝑚, with a very reliable value of 4.24 s², Equation 3 can be
effectively applied to find the value of 𝑔:
2
4π
𝑔= 𝑚
2
4π
𝑔= 4.24
𝑔 = 9. 31 𝑚/𝑠²
Under the circumstances of this investigation, a value of 9.31 m/s² for 𝑔 is extremely close to its
literature value. When putting the found value through a percentage error equation, the following
value is found:
𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒− 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = || 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
× 100|| (Equation 7)
Therefore:
9.31−9.81
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = || 9.81 × 100||
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 5. 087% ⇒ ≈ 5% (1 𝑠. 𝑓.)
Uncertainties
The uncertainty for 𝑔 can be determined by utilizing the values found in Graph 3 and applying the
following equation:
9
∆𝑚
∆𝑔 = 𝑚
· 𝑔 (Equation 8)
The value for ∆𝑚 is found through the gradients for the steepest (4.44) and shallowest (4.07) lines
found in the graph. By processing them through the equation below, the following uncertainty is
provided:
𝑚1− 𝑚2
∆𝑚 = 2
(Equation 9)
4.44−4.07
∆𝑚 = 2
∆𝑚 = ± 0. 185
By now applying ∆𝑚 along all other values found into Equation 8, the following absolute
uncertainty is found:
∆𝑚
∆𝑔 = 𝑚
·𝑔
0.185
∆𝑔 = 4.24
· 9. 31
∆𝑔 = 0. 41 𝑚/𝑠² ⇒ ≈ 0. 4 𝑚/𝑠² (1 𝑠. 𝑓.)
For the percentage uncertainty:
0.41
%∆𝑔 = 9.31
· 100
%∆𝑔 = 4. 36% ⇒ ≈ 4% (1 𝑠. 𝑓.)
Conclusion
10
