Simple Harmonic Motion: vertical springs - graphing period^2 & mass

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between mass and the period of oscillation in a vertical spring system, specifically focusing on graphing the square of the period against mass to determine the spring constant.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the method of graphing period squared against mass and the expected relationship to derive the spring constant. Questions arise about the accuracy of the calculated gradient and the choice of data points.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants examining the validity of the data points used and the calculations performed. Some guidance has been offered regarding the selection of data points to improve the accuracy of the slope calculation.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention constraints related to the limited number of data points available from their experiments, which may affect the reliability of the gradient calculation.

crankine
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Using experimental values for mass and period of oscillations, I'm trying to graph period[tex]^{2}[/tex] (y-axis) against mass (x-axis) to get a gradient = 4(pi[tex]^{2}[/tex])/k so I can find k (spring constant).

The problem is that when I use each pair of results in the equation below, I get the right answer for k, but when I graph it and try to use the gradient its wrong! I'm pretty confident I've substitued correctly etc.

If you want the exact data then I would put it up but I don't know how to put tables.

Homework Equations


T = 2pi√(mass/k):

T[tex]^{2}[/tex] = 4(pi[tex]^{2}[/tex])(mass/k) -> compared to y=mx, m=4(pi[tex]^{2}[/tex])/k
k = 4mass(pi[tex]^{2}[/tex])/(T[tex]^{2}[/tex]) -> substituting each pair of T and mass here I get the right answer


The Attempt at a Solution



I've tried swapping the axes and graphing T against m[tex]^{1/2}[/tex] and so on but nothing has got me any closer to the right answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to Physics Forums.

That's weird, your equations and method all look correct.

Here's what I suggest: pick any 2 data points, and post them here. Also post the slope you calculate based on just those 2 points.

Then we can both look at your work and try to figure out what's going on.
 
(the right value for k is about 4 or 5)

mass 0.06
period 0.7
period^2 0.49
calculated value for k 4.834091952

mass 0.1
period 0.8
period^2 0.64
calculated value for k 6.168502751

graph of period^2 (y) and mass (x) gives gradient 1.2558, value for k from this is 31.4...

halp! :) thankyou
 
Thanks for posting the data. Here are questions and comments:

  • What are the units on the masses?
  • It's difficult to get an accurate calculation of the slope from the data you give here, because the two periods are so close together (0.7 s and 0.8 s). Do you have 2 data points where the periods are not so close to each other?
  • If we do use those 2 data points to calculate a slope, we get

    (0.64 - 0.49) / (0.1 - 0.06) = ____ ?​
    (Hint: it's not 1.2558)
 
Thanks :)
All SI units so kg, seconds etc.
I didn't calculate the slope myself, I put it into excel - I think it made the points (0.64,0.49) and (0.1,0.06) I've sorted that so that's okay now.

BUT... now the gradient = 3.75 now... so k = 10.5. This is still double what it should be, and double what I calculated! argh.
 
This is looking better, at least the math is correct for those two points. You could easily be a factor of two high or low when the two periods, 0.7s and 0.8s, are so close to one another.

How about 2 data points that are not so close together in period? That would be a lot closer to the actual slope.
 
No I don't I'm afraid as I only used 3 masses, so the period was 0.7, 0.75 and 0.8.
I think you're right though because when I added a theoretical higher point that fitted with the equation the gradient improved, so I'll go back and repeat the experiment with smaller and greater masses.
Thanks for your help :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K