Defining Relevant Variables:

Figure 1 and 2

Where:
F: The force applied on the spring and the hanging mass m to create a displacement s on the system
(spring with hanging mass).
: The displacement produced by F on the system equivalent to the extension or compression
produced on the spring assuming no energy is lost due to friction during the simple harmonic
motion of the system, 1 in the directly downward direction.
: The acceleration of the system due to F.
: The equilibrium position of the system depending on the mass m.
: The mass of the object hung on the spring in kg.
: Time taken for the system to return to the starting extended position during simple harmonic
motion, measured in s: specifically, T is the period or time taken for one complete oscillation. The
figure depicts 10 measurements of T as the method used to obtain data: time taken for 10 complete
oscillations of the system is measured.

1
Propagation of Uncertainties:

The variables defined above of whom we are working with in this experiment is the independent
variable mass m hung on the spring and the dependent variable time T taken for the system to
return to its original position while in simple harmonic motion. Below is the table containing the
raw data obtained in the experiment where 10 measurements of T: 10T are taken thrice for eight
trials of each value of m are taken so as to reduce random error in the data as much as possible. T.N.
is defined as the trial number.

T.N. / 101 / 102 / 103 /

1 0.050 3.15 3.16 3.10
2 0.100 4.78 4.78 4.61
3 0.150 5.63 5.88 5.82
4 0.200 6.78 6.84 6.85
5 0.250 7.55 7.58 7.62
6 0.300 8.48 8.36 8.34
7 0.350 9.18 9.03 9.06
8 0.400 9.45 9.65 9.60

It is taken that there is negligible uncertainty in mass m so propagations of uncertainties for m are
excluded.

The uncertainty in the time taken for 10 complete oscillations is given by the equation:

10 10
10 =
2
Where,
10 : The uncertainty in the average length 10 , where i corresponds to the set of data of a
certain value i of T.N. obtained for different values of mass .
10 : The maximum value obtained for the time taken 10T due to mass for a trial value of i.
10 : The minimum value obtained for the time taken 10T due to mass for a trial value of i.

Similarly, the average time taken for 10 complete oscillations is given by the equation:

3=1 10
10 =

Where,
= 3: The number of trials taken for 10T for a certain i.
: The value of the trial of 10T for a certain i.

The following is a table presenting the propagated uncertainties for 10T the time taken to complete
10 oscillations by the system due to varied masses m and the average extended length 10:

T.N. / 10/ 10/

1 0.050 0.03 3.14
2 0.100 0.09 4.72
3 0.150 0.10 5.78
4 0.200 0.04 6.82
5 0.250 0.04 7.58
6 0.300 0.07 8.39
7 0.350 0.08 9.09
8 0.400 0.10 9.57
2
The table provides us the uncertainties propagated for the set of data obtained in the trials and
from it we can pick an uncertainty by choosing the mode uncertainty with the highest uncertainty
of 0.10 s.

The uncertainty chosen as the average time taken for 10 oscillations 10 = 0.10

Now, the average time taken for one complete oscillation can be deduced by dividing each value of
10 by 10 and the absolute uncertainty in thus period T can similarly be obtained by dividing 10
by 10:

= 0.010 is the absolute uncertainty in the average time taken to complete an oscillation.

Compiling all the processed uncertainties and data obtained from the trials, the following table
presents the data that this investigation will work with:

T.N. /kg (10 0.10)/ ( 0.010)/

1 0.050 3.14 0.314
2 0.100 4.72 0.472
3 0.150 5.78 0.578
4 0.200 6.82 0.682
5 0.250 7.58 0.758
6 0.300 8.39 0.839
7 0.350 9.09 0.909
8 0.400 9.57 0.957

The table above is represented as a graph in Graph 1: Mass m Versus Period T.

3
Graph 1: Mass Against Period: Analysis

Graph 1: Mass against Period

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
m/kg

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
T/s

The graph of mass versus period clearly depicts an exponential relationship between them; to
verify this relationship we can use logarithms to find the exponential relationship between load and
extension. After mathematical verification we will return to analysing Graph 1 completely. We can
approach mathematical analysis of Graph 1 in the following way by using logarithms of mass m and
period T and mathematically and analytically deducing the exponential relationship between them.

The graph passes through the Origin so we may assume that there is proportionality between the
mass and the period to some exponential degree.

4
Graph 2: Logarithm of Load Against Logarithm of Extension: Analysis

=
log =
= + ; is a constant so let =
= +

= + : Eq. 1

Comparing Eq. 1 to the first order equation of linearity:

= +

We can define Eq. 1 as a linear equation and identify analogous variables through which we can
identify n the exponential factor that relates T to m.
Thus,
: , The function plotted along the ordinate.
: , The gradient of the function.
: , The variable of the function plotted along the abscissa.
: , The y intercept of the function.
The logarithms of load and extension are represented in the table below:

T.N.
1 -1.30 -0.50
2 -1.00 -0.33
3 -0.82 -0.24
4 -0.70 -0.17
5 -0.60 -0.12
6 -0.52 -0.08
7 -0.46 -0.04
8 -0.40 -0.02

According to Eq.1, the exponential relation n is given by the gradient of the line of best fit of the
logarithm of m versus the logarithm of T:

= =

Choosing points to compute n, or the gradient:

= 1.30, = 0.50; and = 0.40, = 0.02

= 0.02 + 0.50 = 0.48

= 0.40 + 1.30 = 0.90
0.90
= = 1.875 2
0.48
=2

5
The data in the table in plotted in the following graph of the logarithm of m versus the logarithm of
T as physical evidence for the deduction above:

Graph 2: logm against logT

1

0.5

0
-1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

-0.5
logm

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5
logT

Thus, we have mathematically deduced that the exponential relation between mass m and period T
is quadratic; uncertainties were disregarded in this deduction, as it was a matter of simple
approximations that do not require extensive mathematical analysis. We can now say with
mathematical evidence that:

Through this relation it is possible for us to formulate that:

= 2 : Eq. 2

Where is the proportionality constant to be determined. Graph 1 can be linearized by plotting

mass against period-squared; mass is directly proportional to the period-squared. This is presented
in Graph 3.

6
Graph 3: Mass Against Period-Squared: Analysis

While linearizing Graph 1, uncertainties for period-squared must also be propagated. Thus, the
most appropriate method of propagation would be through the following deductive equation:

2
2
=2

Multiplying both sides by 2 , we get the equation:

2 = 2 2

The following table presents the uncertainties so that a specific value can be analysed and chosen
as the uncertainty in 2 for each i:

T.N. ( 0.010)/ 2 / 2 2 / 2
1 0.314 0.098 0.060
2 0.472 0.222 0.010
3 0.578 0.334 0.010
4 0.682 0.465 0.010
5 0.758 0.574 0.020
6 0.839 0.703 0.020
7 0.909 0.826 0.020
8 0.957 0.916 0.020

Evidently, the mode uncertainty of 2 shown by the calculations would be the most appropriate
value to be the uncertainty in period squared.

2 = 0.020 2 is the absolute uncertainty chosen for period-squared.

From Eq. 2 we know:

= 2

Eq. 2 gives us the direct mathematical relationship between mass and period-squared. Comparing
the equation to the linear equation:

= +

We can establish the mathematical analogies as the following:

: , The function plotted along the ordinate
: , The gradient of the linear function
2 : , The variable of the function plotted along the abscissa

To determine an expression for , from Newtons Second Law of Motion:

= : Eq. 3
And for a spring, Hookes law says:
= : Eq. 4
Where,
: Spring constant of the spring
7
From Eq. 3:

2
=
2
2
= : Eq. 5
2

Finding the solution for the differential equation Eq. 5:

2 = ; : arbitrary variable to solve for x

= ; = 1

() = + : Eq. 6; , , constants.

Eq. 6 is the solution to Eq. 5, thus:

Using this solution and:

= ; ,

We can deduce that:

= : Eq. 8

2
We know that = 2 = , thus using Eq. 8:

2
=

Squaring both sides of the equation:

2 = 4 2

Rearranging equation in the form of Equation 2:

= 42 2 : Eq. 9

The following presents the graph of mass plotted against period-squared; the final table of
processed data is also shown below; the absolute line of best fit is drawn with relevant error bars
without maximum or minimum gradients shown to avoid complicating the graph:

8
 Graph 3: Mass against Period-Squared
0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
m/kg

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
T2/s2

As predicted, we notice from Graph 3 that there is no y intercept; the line passes through the origin.

The gradient of the line in Graph 3, comparing to the linear equation, gives us the constant of
proportionality:

2
= =
4 2

Choosing points on the line of best fit to compute the absolute gradient:

= 0.200 , 2 = 0.465 2; and = 0.430 , 2 = 1.000 2

= 0.430 0.200 = 0.230

2 = 1.000 0.465 = 0.535 2
0.230
= 4 2 = 16.9757 17.0 2 (3)
0.535

= 17.0 2

9
Graph 4: Maximum and Minimum Gradient Lines of Best Fit: Analysis

We will now mathematically analyse the gradients of the graph given by considering the
uncertainties in the extension x. The Graph presented below: Graph 3, displays the gradient
uncertainties in load against extension. Two trend-lines distinguish the maximum gradient and the
minimum gradient maximum being the largest value and minimum being the lowest.

Graph 4: Maximum and Minimum Lines of Best

Fit for Mass against Period-Squared
0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
Axis Title

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Axis Title

They can each be computed by the same equation used to calculate the gradient of Graph 1:

Computing the minimum gradient by taking the points that are indicated as circular markings on
Graph 3:

= 0.050 , 2 = 0.078 2; and = 0.400 , 2 = 0.936 2

= 0.400 0.050 = 0.350

2 = 0.936 0.078 = 0.858 2
0.350
= 4 2 = 16.104 16.1 2 (3)
0.858

10
 = 16.1 1
Computing the maximum gradient by taking the points that are indicated as triangular markings on
Graph 3:

= 0.050 , 2 = 0.118 2; and = 0.400 , 2 = 0.896 2

= 0.400 0.050 = 0.350

2 = 0.896 0.118 = 0.778 2

So,
0.350
= 4 2 = 17.760 17.8 2 (3)
0.778

= 17.8 1

So, we can compute the uncertainty in the absolute gradient or constant through the following
equation:

=
2

So,
17.8 16.1
= = 0.85 0.9 2
2

Thus, we obtain our absolute result for this investigation as:

= (17.0 0.9) 1

= (17.0 0.9) 1

The proportionality error between mass and period-squared is given by the percentage uncertainty
in :

0.9
= 100% = 5.294% 5.3%
17.0

11
Conclusion:

To summarise from the data analysis in the previous sections, this investigation concludes that the
mass attached to a spring in the orientation that is described by the figures 1 and 2 is in fact related
to the period for one complete oscillation in simple harmonic motion of the spring through the
mechanisms described in the figures. Our data evidently suggests that mass m is directly
proportional to the period-squared 2 (derived in Eq. 2 and supported by Gr. 3).

Mathematical analysis of this relation and the data that we have accumulated during the
investigation allow us to calculate a new physical quantity; this quantity k is known as the spring
constant or the stiffness of the spring and is calculable by approximating the gradient of the line of
best fit in Gr. 3. Said calculations of data have led to the result of approximating k as (17.0
0.9) 2 1. For the convenience of the homogeneity of units in Eq. 2, we had presented the
units of k to be given in 2 , however it is relevant to note that Le Systme International dUnits
or the S.I. system also provides the units of k in 1 and both units are homogenous to each other.

This conclusion is supported by Graphs 1-4. Graph 1 shows a parabola with m in the ordinate as the
function of T in the abscissa and suggests an exponential relation between the two variables. A
logarithmic analysis of these two variables in Graph 2 in fact supports that m as a function of T
provides a parabolic relationship from gradient analysis of the logarithmic graph, providing the
exact exponential relationship between m and T, which approximates to m being directly
proportional to the square of T. Furthermore, this conclusion seems promising due to the
theoretical solutions for the relationship between mass and period from Equations 2-9 which also
give theoretical evidence through deducing the physical situation that m is directly
proportional to 2 , these solutions also provide a physical significance to the constant of
proportionality, through which we have been able to calculate the spring constant k. To support the
suggestions made by Equations 2-9; Graph 3 presents mass m plotted against period-squared 2
and as predicted thereof, we get a linearized graph of a straight upward sloping line that passes
through the Origin (0,0), suggesting very evidently that mass in fact is directly proportional to the
period-squared. Finally, the analysis of maximum and minimum gradients in Graph 4 allows us to
provide and uncertainty in the spring constant k obtained through the analysis of Graph 3 and
furthermore allows us to approximate the error in proportionality between the mass and the
period-squared, which is calculated to approximately 5.3% error, a generally small error most
probably due to the quality of design and method of the investigation. Thus all this evidence points
to us that our conclusion is in fact correct.

The 5.3% error in proportionality perhaps arises primarily from random error. In Graphs 1-4 some
data points are scattered randomly about the line of best fit (or curve in Graph 1). Though only
slightly scattered and fitting the various functions (1: parabolic, 2: logarithmic, 3: linear)
approximately, this suggests the presence of random error in the data that we have collected in the
investigation. There are no y-intercepts in either Graph 1 or the linearized Graph 3 since both the
parabola and the linearized line of best fit goes through the Origin (0,0), which suggests
insignificant presence of systematic error in the database. Graph 4 shows x and y-intercepts in the
maximum and minimum gradient lines of best fit which suggests the presence of a random error in
the investigation. The significance of this error analysis is explored further in the sections below.

In reiteration, the evidence provided in this investigation leads us to conclude that mass m is
directly proportional to the period-squared 2 , and allows us to approximate the spring constant or
the stiffness of the spring k.

12
Evaluation of Procedure:

The investigation was carried out with increments of 0.050 and a total of eight increments were
made to accumulate a large reading. While this method of data collection minimises random error
to a certain extent, it lacked a wide range for the investigation as the largest mass for which data
was collected was a mere 0.400 and thus was limited to small masses while data could have
been collected until at least 0.600 which provides four more readings (it is important to note
that inclusion of data for too much mass exposes the risk for the spring to deform due to the
excessive weight exceeding the elastic limit of the spring). While mainly due to the incapability of
the materials provided in accommodating masses larger than 0.400 to be attached to the spring
this limitation of the data to lower values of mass decreases the validity of the investigation and its
results. It is not a great weakness in the investigation and is actually rather well managed due to the
amount of readings it provides.

Readings for 10T were taken thrice for each increment. It is evident that there are faults in this
method of data collection and is probably the source of a large portion of random error in the
investigation. The table of raw data shows the variation of uncertainty with each increment of mass
and evidence of a modal uncertainty is lacking and is random (uncertainty ranged from 0.03 to
0.10) and suggests that three trials for each increment is insufficient and causes inaccuracy in
readings (data scatter in Graph 1 and Graph 3). This limitation influences the uncertainty values
propagated and forces the investigator to choose the highest uncertainty found while propagating
them. This ultimately influences the divergence of the lines of maximum and minimum gradients
from the absolute line of best fit and provides a high value of uncertainty to be calculated for the
spring constant k thus causing relatively large percentage error in proportionality, reducing the
validity of the investigation and its results.

No efforts or mechanisms were adopted to reduce friction between the spring and the stand that it
was attached to as it was assumed that friction between two metallic surfaces (the spring and the
stand) would be too small to produce a significant systematic error in the time taken to complete
10 oscillations. There is evidence in the data analysis that this method is adequate to collect data, as
there werent any y-intercepts in either the un-linearized Graph 1 or the linearized Graph 3. It is
thus assumed that this doesnt contribute to any devaluation of the investigations conclusions and
results in any form. The mechanism involved in the experiment could sometimes cause instability
in the stand and cause it to vibrate and disrupt the constant and controlled horizontal dynamics of
the system (the spring was set to only oscillate in one direction, which is vertical); this was a
hindrance in the fluidity of the method i.e. the time management in the investigation and was
an obstacle in efficient, manageable and organised data collection, while not a direct hindrance on
the data itself, as any instability in the stand would cause us to restart the collection of data for that
reading. This could be fixed with a g-clamp to stabilise the stands position.

Furthermore, no efforts or mechanisms were adopted to make sure that the force applied to create
an extension of 1 so as to trigger simple harmonic motion on the spring was constant and
controlled. This could also possibly be another large source of random error in the investigation.
The constant extension force used to trigger simple harmonic motion causes the tension in the
spring, which leads to the acceleration in the opposite direction to the displacement caused by it. In
any given reading, when less force is used due to uncertainty, there is less acceleration and time
taken to complete 10 oscillations takes longer, while when more force is used due to uncertainty,
there is more acceleration and time taken to complete 10 oscillations takes faster. The uncertainty
in this extension or trigger force thus causes randomness in the readings and contributes to the
random scatter of data as well as the divergence of the lines of maximum and minimum gradients
from the absolute line of best fit causing a large uncertainty in the calculation of the gradient and
thus the calculation of the spring constant k thus inflicting relatively large error in proportionality.
This also reduces the validity of the conclusion and results of the investigation.
13
Improving the Investigation:
Improvements on these comments are suggested in the table below:
Weaknesses and Limitations
The range of data taken for mass is too small and is
restricted the data collection to lower values of
mass: 0.050 0.400 . This limitation with increments of 0.050 kg resulting in more
doesnt validate the conclusion and results of this
investigation to approximate the spring constant k
for higher values of m, as that generalisation has no
physical evidence to be validated. This decreases
the overall validity of the investigation and its
results.
The readings taken for the time taken to complete
10 oscillations for each increment of mass are
restricted to only 3 repetitions. This limitation
restricts the results and the conclusion of the
experiment to higher occurrence of random error,
greater uncertainty in the spring constant k
calculated through the data and larger values of
error in the proportionality of the variables. This
decreases the overall validity of the investigation
and its results due to the restrictive lower precision
of data analysis even if the procession results in an
accurate value, its reliability decreases when the
uncertainty in the value increases.
The instability of the stand is a hindrance to the
time management of the investigation and if left
unchecked could create large values of random
error as it affects one of the controls of the
investigation, which is that the direction of the
oscillation of the spring is only vertical while
horizontal dynamics are kept still. These limitations
would contribute to inaccuracy and imprecision if
left unchecked.
The lack of control of the supposed controlled
variable of the amount of force used to trigger the
simple harmonic motion failed in being kept a
constant. Investigators failed to maintain this
mechanism as a controlled variable instead relying
on intuition on how much force was being applied
and approximating a 1 cm extension by it. This lack
of control possibly contributed much to the random
error in the experiment due to the uncertainty it
causes in the time taken for 10 complete
oscillations. While such an uncertainty certainly
could affect the accuracy of the investigation, it
most importantly affects the precision of the
investigation due to the random data it produces.
Large uncertainties in data decrease the validity of
the conclusion and the results of the investigation.
Suggestions
Range of data should be made to accommodate
values of mass at least up to 0.600 kg continuing
minimisation of random error. Care should be taken
not to exceed the elastic limit of the spring. The
material used for attaching the masses to the spring
should be modified to accommodate more mass on
the spring as appropriate so as to allow this new
range of data.
The readings taken for the time taken to complete
10 oscillations for each increment of mass should
be increased. The method for taking these readings
should not be fixed on a certain number of
repetitions but rather it should be such that the
readings should be repeated until there are three
values of 10T with the same numerical values
before the decimal point and 1 place after the
decimal point. This method would greatly reduce
the random scatter of data above or below the
linearized line of best fit in Graph 3 and maximum
and minimum gradient lines in Graph 4 would
converge closer to the absolute line of best fit.
The stand should be held in position stably by a g-
clamp or another effective clamp. It should be
certain that the stand would not be instable so as to
avoid faulty data to be collected in the
investigation. This method thus would control the
horizontal dynamics of the spring as constantly still
and controlled. Time management would also be
much greater in efficiency and the investigation
data would have more reliability.
The extension force can be kept constant by
attaching a meter rule to the stand in parallel
orientation to the stand and the springs direction of
extension due to the force. From Hookes law, the
force required to create a certain extension for a
controlled material is always the same. Care should
be taken with this method to reduce human error as
much as possible while reading extensions: the eye
level of the investigator should be perpendicular to
the orientation of the attached meter stick to reduce
or remove (make insignificant) the parallax error
while doing so. This would greatly increase the
precision and accuracy of the results obtained by
the investigation due to reduction in scatter of data
points and convergence of minimum and maximum
gradient lines with the absolute line of best fit.
14