Simple Harmonic Motion

pdf

School

Stony Brook University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

133

Subject

Physics

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

10

Uploaded by DrSalmonPerson919

Report
Daniel Kim 11/3/23 PHY 133.L69 TA: Yikai Wu Simple Harmonic Motion Lab
Introduction: In this lab we have three objectives. Experimentally finding the angular velocity of a simple harmonic oscillator and comparing this value to the theoretical value, Using the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) function to find the peak frequency, and Experimentally testing the relationship between the mass of the object and the angular frequency of the oscillator. Simple harmonic motion is a type of oscillatory motion that occurs when a mass on a spring is subject to a restoring force. The restoring force is directly proportional to the displacement of the mass from the equilibrium position and will always pull the mass back in the direction of the equilibrium position which can be derived using Newton’s Second Law in an equation. Procedure: 1) Measure the mass of just the iolab device. 2) Connect the long spring to the screw on the io lab, hang the device, and let it oscillate. 3) Add another object and measure the mass of the device + the object 4) Let the device with the new mass oscillate 5) Add one more object and measure the mass of the device + two objects 6) Let the device with the new mass oscillate 7) Use the Fast Fourier Transform function to find the peak frequency 8) Plot the angular frequency of the device versus the mass of the device Results: Figure 1. Device at rest
Figure 2. Device being held up midair Figure 3. Device at rest with an added object
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
Figure 4. Mass of device with an added object Figure 5. Device at rest with 2 added objects/mass
Figure 6. Mass of device with 2 added objects Figure 7. Oscillation of only the iolab
Figure 8. Oscillation of iolab and added mass Figure 9. Oscillation of iolab + 2 masses
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
Table 1. Acceleration, Force, and Total Mass of device + objects Fg=mg Force Due to gravity (N) Force due to acceleration (m/s^2) Mass (kg) Iolab -1.988 -9.811 0.2026 Iolab + 1 mass -2.025 -9.813 0.2064 Iolab + 2 mass -3.137 -9.811 0.3197 Table 2. Iolab + masses oscillating data Time for 5 peaks (s) Time for 1 period(s) (s) Angular Frequency (w) From Period (rad/s) Peak Frequency (Hz) Angular Frequency from Peak Frequency (rad/s) Iolab 3.095 0.773 8.570 2.345 14.734 Iolab + 1 mass 3.460 0.865 7.263 1.368 8.595 Iolab + 2 mass 4.181 1.045 6.013 1.567 9.846 Table 3. Values used for mass vs. angular frequency plot Mass (kg) Angular Frequency (rad/s) Iolab 0.2026 14.734 Iolab + 1 mass 0.2064 8.595 Iolab + 2 mass 0.3197 9.846 Graph 1. Graph of mass (kg) vs. Angular Frequency
Calculations: Iolab device mass: Fg = mg (-1.988N) = m(-9.811m/s^2) m= 0.2026kg Iolab device mass + 1 mass: (-2.025N) = m(-9.813m/s^2) m= 0.2064kg Iolab device mass + 2 masses: (-3.137N) = m(-9.811m/s^2) m=0.3197kg Time for 1 period(s): Iolab: 3.095 / 4 = 0.773 Iolab with 1 mass: 3.460 / 4 = 0.865 Iolab with 2 mass: 4.181 / 4 = 1.045 Angular Frequency (w) From Period (rad/s): Iolab: 1/0.773 = 1.364 2π(1.364) = 8.570 Iolab with 1 mass: 1/0.865 = 1.156 2π(1.156) = 7.263 Iolab with 2 mass: 1/1.045 = 0.957 2π(0.957) = 6.013
Angular Frequency from Peak Frequency (rad/s): Iolab: 2π(2.345) = 14.734 Iolab with 1 mass: 2π(1.368) = 8.595 Iolab with 2 mass: 2π(1.567) = 9.846 Percent Error: #1. ((8.57/5)/5)(100) = 71.4% #2. ((7.263/5)/5)(100) = 45.6% #3. ((6.013/5)/5)(100) = 20.26% Conclusion: In the beginning of the lab, we solved for the mass of the iolab itself and the mass of the iolab plus another mass and another mass for a third trial. The different masses were found to be 0.2026 kg, 0.2064 kg, and 0.3197 kg. The increasing masses showed us that the masses of each trial were accurate as if the mass from trial 2 was heavier than trial 3, then something during the experiment went wrong. When completing all the calculations, the percent error came back with results of 71.4%, 45.6%, and 20.26%. When compared to the theoretical percent error which was 5%, this showed that an error occurred during the experiment. This could have been a computational error, iolab device error, or even just a human interference error. The slope of the trendline was also 42.543 and compared to the A value of 3.39 which is just the square root of the spring constant(11.5N/m), the values differ significantly. This again, signifies that an error has occurred during the experiment and if the experiment had a longer trial time, then we are confident that the values of the data could have been fixed and result in a number closer to the original data hypothesized.
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