What is the Error Source in SHM Experiment with Floating Cylinder?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on an experiment investigating the effect of mass on the period of oscillation of a floating cylinder in simple harmonic motion (SHM). The experiment shows that while the cylinder oscillates, it does not exhibit true SHM due to decreasing amplitude and an unclear correlation between mass and the square of the period. Participants suggest that energy loss may be occurring from moving water, and the gravitational force on the bob was overlooked in the initial equations. The relationship between mass and period squared appears to fit well graphically, despite not passing through the origin, indicating an offset that requires further explanation. Overall, the experiment highlights the complexities of SHM in practical applications and the need for careful consideration of all forces involved.
smokedvanilla
Messages
27
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Investigating the effect of mass on the period of oscillation.

This experiment is about SHM of a floating cylinder, and the theory is explained in this website:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64154/shm-of-floating-objects

Also, I'm attaching a diagram of my experimental setup. (x is the displacement of the cylinder under water)

Homework Equations



Buoyant force acting on the cylinder, F=Vρg=Axρg
As Newton's second law states that F=ma, a=-Axρg/m
Since a is directly proportional to -x, this fulfils the condition for SHM.

a=ω^2x, and ω=2∏/T

therefore a=(4∏^2)x/T^2

-Axρg/m=(4∏^2)x/T^2

From the derivation above, it can be concluded that 1/m is directly proportional to 1/T^2, and therefore m is proportional to the square of period.

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to perform the above experiment. The cylinder does bob up and down in the water, but it does not perform SHM. First of all, the amplitude keeps decreasing, but I have no idea what is the source of energy loss. Besides, the correlation between m and T^2 is also not directly proportional.

Does anyone have an idea what's the error in this experiment?
 

Attachments

  • Photo on 4-3-15 at 6.44 PM.jpg
    Photo on 4-3-15 at 6.44 PM.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 647
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
While it does not change the period of the oscillation, you forgot the gravitational force on the bob in the equations.
smokedvanilla said:
From the derivation above, it can be concluded that 1/m is directly proportional to 1/T^2, and therefore m is proportional to the square of period.
I agree.
smokedvanilla said:
First of all, the amplitude keeps decreasing, but I have no idea what is the source of energy loss.
You are moving water around all the time. Could this lead to losses?
smokedvanilla said:
Besides, the correlation between m and T^2 is also not directly proportional.
Can you post your data?
 
mfb said:
While it does not change the period of the oscillation, you forgot the gravitational force on the bob in the equations.

Does this mean that the net force acting on the oscillating cylinder is (buoyant force)-(weight of cylinder) or vise versa depending on the direction of its motion? (Which means ma=Fb-mg, is this eqn correct?)

This is the graph of square of period against mass.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 10.31.17 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-04-04 at 10.31.17 AM.png
    19.2 KB · Views: 657
smokedvanilla said:
Does this mean that the net force acting on the oscillating cylinder is (buoyant force)-(weight of cylinder) or vise versa depending on the direction of its motion?
Right (and the sign just depends on the definition of "direction of force"). As the weight of the cylinder does not change this is just an offset to the equilibrium position, the derivatives don't change.
smokedvanilla said:
This is the graph of square of period against mass.
The straight line looks like a very nice fit. It has an offset that needs an explanation, but I see where it can come from.
I wonder how you got frequency measurements with that precision.
 
As theweight of the cylinder does not change this is just an offset to the equilibrium position, the derivatives don't change.

I'm sorry I didn't quite get what you meant by this.

As for the graph, I took about 7 measurements (time taken for 3 oscillations) for each mass and calculated the average value. I just realized that it is actually a very nice fit, coz I was too carried away by the fact that it doesn't pass thru the origin..
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
39
Views
114K
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
6K