Lab3_Notebook_InPerson Puurich Yip

pdf

School

University of Colorado, Denver *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2321

Subject

Physics

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by puurich

Pendulum II: Notebook Name: Puurich Yip Station #: 1 Lab Group Members: Erik Miller, Lexie Cushing, Puurich Yip, Ashley King Increase space as necessary!!! Please make sure the difference between your text and the included text is obvious, either by using a different color font or by using the stylus to handwrite (if writing by hand, make sure your writing is legible!). Comparing Periods of Two Different Angles in a Simple Pendulum Use this space to describe your experimental setup for the pendulum. Which position do you think you should measure period from? Why? I think you should measure the period of each trial from the maximum angle and stop the stopwatch when it returns to that position. I think you should measure period from the max angle rather than when the weight is perpendicular to the table because in doing that, there ’ s a bigger possibility for a mistake. It might also not give the accurate time for the weight to swing a full period. Use the space below to record your strategy for recording data. Be as specific as possible; you should include: how you’re going to record the data, what materials you’ll be using, what the resolution of your materials are, and what uncertainties you notice and how you would approximate them. This is a very vague portion of the lab, so if you need some direction about what you should be writing, ask your instructor! The resolution of our stopwatch is 0.01 seconds, We are using a: pendulum, stopwatch, weight, protractor, string, excel sheet Our strategy for recording data is keeping everything consistent, with respect to each angle. We will keep the mass of the weight consistent throughout all twenty trials, to keep our times accurate. With each trial within each angle we, are using a protractor at the top of the pendulum and releasing the weight at the same position every trial. As we release the weight, we start the stopwatch. When the weight returns to the original position and completes one period, we stop the timer.

Use the space below to record your data and any notes you have as you work through the experiment. In this space, you should show all of your data and calculate the average and uncertainty of your data. Answer the following leading questions: • Do your two values agree or disagree? Use both the dot-and- whisker method and the t’ - score to make your conclusion. Our two values disagree. Based on our dot-and-whisker method, our two plots of data don ’ t have overlapping error bars, which means that we should re-think our data, and if we had more time, re-do it. Based on out t ’ , our values also disagree. With t ’ , we got a value of 10.011, which tells us that it is VERY unlikely that our values are the same. • If you had time to repeat the experiment and reduce uncertainty, what changes would you make to do so? If I had the time to repeat this experiment, I would have more than 10 trials per angle. With more data in my dataset, we would be able to better see our outliers, and booting them out of our data. With just 10 values in our dataset, it ’ s hard to see outliers, therefore they might mess up our data.

Comparing to a Known Model Answer the following questions for comparing your results to the theoretical model of a simple pendulum. • What did you discover through your analysis? Through our analysis, we found that our two data values didn’t agree with each other, primarily because of human error. When comparing my data to the known model of a period, our data was very inconsistent compared to it, whether it was from releasing it from an inconsistent point each trial or starting and stopping the stopwatch at an inconsistent time. With the known model, the result of the period should ’ ve been the exact same throughout each of the 20 trials, because there was no angle in use, and it was not. • Is your analysis consistent with the model given in Equation 2 of the Supplement? o If it is not consistent, what could have caused your results to be different? Our analysis is not consistent with the model Equation 2, because we used an angle to make each of our trials. With that being said, there is a new variable added to the picture. In the model, there is no angle being used so every trial would be the exact same. With no angle, the length of the pendulum is consistent, acceleration (gravity) is also consistent, and 2pi will always be the same. A new variable added, it makes T vary from trial to trial, because of human error. Conclusion Write a summary of what you did and what you found. Describe your results. Do they make sense? We tested the pendulum through 10 trials from 10 degrees, and 25 degrees. With those numbers, we have the average, standard deviation, and uncertainty from those two angles. We found that the average time it took to complete a period from a 10 degree angle was faster than the average period of the 25 degree angle, even though they should have been the same, or at least pretty close. This high difference in average caused our dot and whisker plots to be far away from each other and making our t ’ a really high number (10.011). This meant that our two values didn’t’ agree with each other (AT ALL), which makes sense because of our human error. If our two average values were closer to each other, that would’ve made t ’ to be a much lower number, which is what we want. The reason our numbers didn ’ t agree with each other is because our averages were so far apart.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Related Documents

Module 3 Practice - Solutions.pdf

p250 Fa23 Exam 1 vA solutions.pdf

p250 Fa23 Exam 1 vA (1).docx

p250 Fa23 Exam 1 vA.pdf

Pendulum Lab Summer 1.docx

Experiment 14 Standing Waves.docx

lab1yipwpre.pdf

Capacitors Lab Yip.pdf

Electric Field and Potential Lab yip.pdf

Coulomb_yip.pdf

Lab10.docx.pdf

Copy of Cratering - Notebook Template (1).pdf

Recommended textbooks for you

Glencoe Physics: Principles and Problems, Student...

Physics

ISBN:9780078807213

Author:Paul W. Zitzewitz

Publisher:Glencoe/McGraw-Hill

Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Foundations...

Physics

ISBN:9781133939146

Author:Katz, Debora M.

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text

Physics

ISBN:9781133104261

Author:Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Physics for Scientists and Engineers

Physics

ISBN:9781337553278

Author:Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern ...

Physics

ISBN:9781337553292

Author:Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett

Publisher:Cengage Learning

Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Technology ...

Physics

ISBN:9781305116399

Author:Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett

Publisher:Cengage Learning

SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS

Recommended textbooks for you

Glencoe Physics: Principles and Problems, Student...
Physics
ISBN:9780078807213
Author:Paul W. Zitzewitz
Publisher:Glencoe/McGraw-Hill
Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Foundations...
Physics
ISBN:9781133939146
Author:Katz, Debora M.
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Principles of Physics: A Calculus-Based Text
Physics
ISBN:9781133104261
Author:Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Physics for Scientists and Engineers
Physics
ISBN:9781337553278
Author:Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern ...
Physics
ISBN:9781337553292
Author:Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Technology ...
Physics
ISBN:9781305116399
Author:Raymond A. Serway, John W. Jewett
Publisher:Cengage Learning