Internal Assessment

Name: Fredrik Arentz

Subject: IB Physics HL

Research Question:

How can Damped Harmonic Motion be Used to Determine the Coefficient of Kinetic Friction?

Word Count: 2444

 Fredrik Arentz 2

Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Personal Involvement ............................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction: ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Theory: .................................................................................................................................................... 4
The Experiment: ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Method ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Finding the spring constant of the oscillator: ..................................................................................... 7
Determining the displacement of the oscillator using image analysis ............................................... 9
Determining ε(t) .................................................................................................................................. 9
Results: .................................................................................................................................................. 10
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Acknowledgement of Uncertainties ................................................................................................. 11
Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 13
Graphs of trials .................................................................................................................................. 13
MATLAB code .................................................................................................................................... 16
Data from Experiment ...................................................................................................................... 17
Trial 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Trial 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Trial 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 19
Trial 4 ............................................................................................................................................ 20
Trial 5 ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Trial 6 ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Works Cited ....................................................................................................................................... 23
 Fredrik Arentz 3

Abstract
The essay determines the coefficient of friction between two steel plates to be 0.305
with a measurement standard deviation of 0.0145. The method used in this essay has proved
to be an accurate way of determining the coefficient of friction between two surfaces,
however time consuming.

Personal Involvement
As a student aspiring to become an engineer, I have taken a great interest in mechanics.
However, the mechanics taught in school is simplified; Simple Harmonic Motion neglects
friction to make equations easier, but it is not normally applicable in the real world. I have
recently been drawn towards to new concepts that involve resistant forces, such as in my EE
where I use projectile motion with friction and spin. My IA follows this trend. The purpose of
my IA is to device a way of calculating the coefficient of friction by removing an assumption
we use in IB Physics: friction is neglected in SHM. This is also directly applicable to my future
study in physics, because one must do testing of friction to get data to account for heat
dispersion between moving parts and wear of parts. DHM can here be used.

Introduction:
In Damped Harmonic Motion (DHM), friction is no longer assumed to be negligible
unlike in SHM. This means that the friction exerted on the cart pulled by springs is included in
calculations of the movement of the cart. This also means that the coefficient of friction can be
calculated from the movement of the system. In this essay, I will attempt to calculate the
coefficient of friction between two steel plates using damped harmonic motion.
 Fredrik Arentz 4

Theory:
Damped harmonic motion follows this equation:
𝑑2 𝑥 𝑑𝑥
= −2𝛾𝜔 0 − 𝜔0 2 𝑥
𝑑𝑡 2 𝑑𝑡

𝑚 𝑐
Where 𝜔0 = √ 𝑘 , the undamped ratio and 𝛾 = 2√𝑚𝑘, the damping ratio [Wiki]

c is in this case the coefficient of kinetic friction (dimensionless), m is the mass of the cart in
kilogrammes and k is the spring constant (N/m).
If one were to solve the differential equation, (here done with MATLAB, code given in
appendix) this is the displacement from the equilibrium as a function of time in seconds:
1
𝑘(− 𝑐 2 + 4𝑘𝑚) 2
𝑡 ((− ) + 𝑐𝜔0 )
𝑚 1
𝑘(− 𝑐 2 + 4𝑘𝑚) 2
𝑥0 𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 1 ((− ) − 𝑐𝜔0)
𝑚
2(𝑘𝑚)2

𝑥(𝑡) = ( )
1
𝑘(4𝑘𝑚 − 𝑐 2) 2
2 (− )
𝑚
1 1
𝑘(− 𝑐 2 + 4𝑘𝑚) 2 𝑘 2
𝑡 ((− ) − 𝑐( ) )
𝑚 𝑚 1 1
𝑘(− 𝑐 2 + 4𝑘𝑚) 2 𝑘 2
𝑥0 𝑒𝑥𝑝 1 ((− ) + 𝑐( ) )
𝑚 𝑚
2(𝑘𝑚)2

+ ( )
1
𝑘(4𝑘𝑚 − 𝑐 2) 2
2 (− )
𝑚

This of course is a complex equation, but it can be simplified to:

𝑥(𝑡) = 𝑥0 e−γ𝜔0𝑡 sin(𝑡𝜔0 √𝛾 2 − 1) [Wiki]

This final equation has two components 𝑥0 e−γ𝜔0𝑡 and sin(𝑡𝜔0 √𝛾 2 − 1).

𝑥0 e−γ𝜔0𝑡 describes the damped proportion of the system energy, in this essay, this will
hereby be referred to as by 𝜀(𝑡). A way of visualising this is through the graphs of the two
functions:
 Fredrik Arentz 5

As can be seen in these two graphs, the first equation (𝜀(𝑡)) shows an exponential decay. In
the full function, this serves as the dampening factor of the second equation which exhibits
sinusoidal simple harmonic motion.

The above graph is the product of the two composites, and it displays DHM. The most
important thing to notice in these two composite functions is the fact that the sinusoidal
function reaches 1 and -1 at evenly spaced and well-defined times. This means at these times

when the values of the second function is at its maxima, the magnitude remaining is the value
of the first function.

In the function 𝜀(𝑡) = 𝑥0 e−γ𝜔0 𝑡 ; 𝛾, 𝜔0 and 𝑥0 are constants meaning the function describes
these three parts over time. This is significant because it is the only factor dampening the
system, otherwise following a predictable sinusoidal movement.
This means that one can use the dampening effect to calculate the coefficient of kinetic friction
with this equation derived from the dampening effect:

𝜀(𝑡) = 𝑥0 e−γ𝜔0 𝑡
ln 𝑥0 − ln 𝜀(𝑡)
𝛾=
𝜔0 𝑡

2√𝑚𝑘(ln 𝑥0 − ln 𝜀(𝑡)) 2m(ln 𝑥0 − ln 𝜀(𝑡))

𝑐= =
𝑡
√𝑘 𝑡
𝑚
Therefore, if we can find the equation 𝜀(𝑡) experimentally, we can also find the coefficient of
friction.
 Fredrik Arentz 6

The Experiment:
Method
This part is concerning creating an experiment to find 𝜀(𝑡) and thereby the coefficient
of friction. The experiment will feature a damped harmonic oscillator and image analysis.
1) Create an oscillator
a) Cut out a 6x12 cm rectangle from a 100x12 cm sheet of steel using a saw.
b) Create a 5x5x5 block of wood by any means (I cut two pieces of
wood measuring 2.5x5x5 cm and glued them together).
c) Using superglue, glue the wooden block to the sheet of steel and
bend the sides of the steel upwards around the block. Smooth the
edges of the steel with a file.
d) Glue a weight to the top of the wooden block and attach two screw
hooks on opposite sides of the wooden box, parallel to the long
side of the steel plate.

2) Set up the experiment

a) Tape the remining 94x12 cm plate of steel to a table and tape two clamp stands on
opposite sides, ensuring the vertical bar of each stand is in the middle of the short side
of the plate (at 6 cm).
b) Take two springs with equal spring constant and put one of the rings through each of
the vertical bars of the clamp stands.
c) Extend the springs and attach the to the hooks on the oscillator created in part 1.
d) Find the point of equilibrium which is the point where the oscillator is not moving and
tape a 30cm ruler to it, with the 15cm mark in the middle of the oscillator.
3) Collect data
a) Extend the spring 15cm away
from equilibrium, marked by
either end of the markings of the
ruler.
b) Let go of the oscillator, filming
the oscillation as it takes place.
c) Repeat (3), varying the weight
added to the top of the oscillator.

Picture taken from trial run without weights

 Fredrik Arentz 7

Finding the spring constant of the oscillator:

Since there are two springs acting in opposite directions, the spring constant k of the system is
different than if only one spring was acting. To figure out the spring constant, some working
out must be done. It is assumed that both springs have the same spring constant.
The spring-force equation is as follows:

𝐹 = −𝑘𝑥
Where k is the spring constant, x is the displacement from equilibrium, and F is the force in
Newtons. To find how the two springs interact, a diagram is useful.

The diagram above shows how the two springs acting in opposite directions. The first acting
from 0 to x, and the other one x to w. The displacement of each spring shown with the arrows
are x and w-x respectively. This means the two forces acting are:

𝐹1 = −𝑘𝑥, 𝐹2 = 𝑘(𝑤 − 𝑥)
The force exerted by spring one is in the negative direction -towards 0 and the second spring
in the positive direction – towards w.
The net force is the sum of those two forces:

𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝐹1 + 𝐹2 = −𝑘𝑥 + 𝑘(𝑤 − 𝑥) = 𝑘(𝑤 − 2𝑥)

This means that the net force depends on the width and the distance x from 0, but we are
concerned about the displacement from the equilibrium where 𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 0.

𝑓(𝑥) = 𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 0 = 𝑘(𝑤 − 2𝑥)

𝑤 𝑤
𝑤 − 2𝑥 = 0 ; 𝑥 = ; 𝑥0 =
2 2
If we transform the function by 𝑥0 , we get a function for the force from equilibrium.

𝑓(𝑥) = 𝑘(𝑤 − 𝑥); 𝑓(𝑥0 + 𝑥) = 2𝑘𝑥

The spring constant is equal to 𝑓 −1 (𝑥0 + 𝑥) which is the first derivative of 𝑓(𝑥0 + 𝑥), giving
2𝑘. This means that the spring constant when two springs are placed opposite each other is
 Fredrik Arentz 8

twice the spring constant of one of the springs. While counterintuitive, a simple graph can help
make this more intuitive.
This diagram shows the different forces acting on the oscillator and the sum of the two forces.

The diagram shows how the net force is 0 through the equilibrium and illustrates why the spring
constant – shown by the slope of the graph – of the system is twice the spring constant of the
two subsidiaries of the system.
The actual spring constant of the two springs can be found experimentally using the weight-
extension experiment covered in most physics classes. Due to the prevalence of this
experiment, this essay will not go into detail on the method.
Weight Length
Determining the Spring Constant
Mass (kg) (N) (m)
0.25
0.1 0.981 0.04 y = 0.0408x
Extension (m)

0.2
0.2 1.962 0.08 R² = 1
0.15
0.3 2.943 0.12 0.1
0.4 3.924 0.16 0.05
0.5 4.905 0.2 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Force Induced (N)
1 1
𝑘= = = 24.5𝑁𝑚−1
𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 0.0408
Since the spring constant of the system is 2k, the spring constant of the system is 49.0.
 Fredrik Arentz 9

Determining the displacement of the oscillator using image analysis

The field of vision of the camera can be simplified into an isosceles triangle shown in the figure
below. One of the most important features of the camera is that no matter where it is on the
screen, every pixel represents the same spatial length. This means that whether it is on the
corner, or whether it is in the middle of the screen, one centimeter will be represented by the
same number of pixels.

The horizontal resolution is 1920 pixels. Using this

principle and two reference points from the ruler in
the experiment (𝑥−0.15𝑚 , 𝑥0.15𝑚 ), we can derive a
method to find the position of the oscillator.
I set the camera in a way that the equilibrium point
is in the middle of the camera and the camera itself
was perpendicular to the to the oscillator track.

Pixel number of 𝑥−0.15𝑚 = 98 and pixel number of

𝑥0.15𝑚 = 1822

Distance between the two points = 0.3m, and pixel distance = 1724. This means that each pixel
represents 1.74 ∗ 10−4 𝑚 or 0.174mm which is very accurate, giving an uncertainty of only
±8.70 ∗ 10−5 𝑚 in the measurement itself.
The position of the equilibrium was at pixel number 960, meaning that this will be the point
where displacement = 0. Using the data we have collected, we can create a function to find the
position.

𝑥 = 1.74 ∗ 10−4 ∗ (𝑝 − 960)

x is displacement in meters, p is the pixel number.
The MATLAB function used to calculate this for all the points in the experiment can be found
in the Appendix.

Determining ε(t)
ε(t), which is the dampening part of the oscillation equation is harder to determine since it is
interacting with the sinusoidal movement as stated in the theory part of this essay, but that
part also states that when the sine wave is equal to 1 or -1, only ε(t) remains. Another
property of a sine function is that the function can never exceed the magnitude of 1. In other
words, the maxima and minima of the sine function is 1 and -1. Therefore, if we find every
maxima and minima in the stream of displacement data, we will have data points for ε(t). In
MATLAB, there is a function for creating an exponential using data points and there is also a
function for finding every local maximum in a stream of ordered data points, fit and findpeaks
respectively. Using these two functions, and applying it to the absolute value of the
displacement data points, we can find ε(t).
 Fredrik Arentz 10

Results:
Conclusion
The results are shown in the Appendix. When plotting the displacement as a function
of time, the dampening sinusoidal function is apparent. This is the data taken from Trial 4.

Using the maxima function of the absolute value of the measurement, the total energy-
indicated by the displacement of each node at different times- follows an exponential curve,
and using a curve fitting tool with the amplitudes, this function can be derived, as in this case.

The exponential curve is determined to be as follows by the MATLAB program:

𝜀(𝑡) = 0.1499𝑒 −0.4934𝑡

Taking the natural logarithm of ε(t) (ln(ε(t)) would leave you with a function in this format:

ln(𝜀(𝑡)) = 𝑙𝑛𝑥0 − 𝑎𝑡 = ln(0.1499) − 0.4934𝑡

For trial 4, the mass of the oscillator is 0.3kg. This means that we can find the frictional
coefficient from this data as follows:
2m(ln 𝑥0 − ln 𝜀(𝑡)) 2𝑚(0.4934𝑡)
𝑐= = = 0.296
𝑡 𝑡
The experiment was done 6 times as shown in the table below.
Trial Mass (kg) ε(t) Coeff of Frict σ of measurement
1 0.5 -0.305 0.305 0.0925
2 0.5 -0.333 0.333 0.0866
3 0.5 -0.304 0.304 0.0914
4 0.3 -0.494 0.296 0.0750
5 0.3 -0.503 0.302 0.0768
6 0.3 -0.486 0.292 0.0718

The experiment determines the coefficient of steel to steel as being 0.305. The data exhibits a
standard deviation of 0.0145 which is very accurate. The data used and the graphs produced by
the different oscillations are given in the Appendix.
 Fredrik Arentz 11

Acknowledgement of Uncertainties
The uncertainty of the measurements is hard to determine due to the volatile nature of the
measurement made in this experiment. Due to the high-speed nature of the oscillator, reaching
1.8m/s at some points, air resistance may not be negligible, friction between the spring and the
clamp stand can also have an effect, but these are difficult to measure. The two losses to the
surroundings would make the coefficient of friction too high.

In terms of the measurement of the data, the uncertainty is also difficult to measure, due to the
dependency on velocity. While it was established in the image analysis section that the camera
measurement only has an uncertainty of ±8.70 ∗ 10−5 𝑚, there was a camera blur due to the
high speeds of the oscillator. The blur meant it was difficult to select the pixel of the middle
accurately. An analysis of the uncertainties in Trial 4 by finding the difference between the
modelled oscillation and the measured data may be helpful in finding the uncertainty in the
measurement.
Dividing by the modelled velocity of the oscillator yields an interesting finding. As suspected,
the uncertainty is dependent on the velocity. Using the numbers from the y-axis of the second
graph, an equation for the uncertainty can be deduced:

𝑑𝑥
∆𝑥 = ±0.03
𝑑𝑡
There does not seem to be any bias in the uncertainty, which means that the uncertainty is due
to random error.
 Fredrik Arentz 12

Evaluation
The experiment was in most ways very straight forward, and the results were precise. There are a
few ways that I would improve my experiment if I were to do it again.

• Wary the weight in a wider range of masses, not just 0.3kg and 0.5kg. This would most likely
give a better range and more accurate results since uncertainties due to wobble or slips
would be more constant with a smaller range of weights.
• I would also like to have tried the experiment with a range of springs with different spring
constants. I only had springs with the same spring constant, and using more would give a
better range of results, and lower spring constants could reduce outside factors such as
wobble and air resistance due to smaller forces and lower velocity.
• I would also tape the springs to the vertical bar to reduce lost energy to the surroundings by
removing friction and movement by the springs.
• Having a high-speed camera with more frames per second would also be beneficial. I used a
25fps camera and the image could be blurry. With a better-quality camera, blur would be
reduced and uncertainties would decrease consequently.

Despite these changes, I find the experiment to be very successful with very small errors. This has
proved to be a very effective way of determining the coefficient of friction of two materials.
 Fredrik Arentz 13

Appendix
Graphs of trials
Fredrik Arentz 14
Fredrik Arentz 15
 Fredrik Arentz 16

MATLAB code
x = INITIAL_FRAME;
xf = FINAL_FRAME;
filename = 'CAM-TRIAL-X.wmv';
v = VideoReader(filename);
v.CurrentTime = x/v.FrameRate;
final = xf - x;
i = 1;
pos1 = zeros(3, 2);
while i <= final
rgb = readFrame(v);
imshow(rgb);
[x1,y] = ginput(1);
position = x1;
pos(i, 1) = (i-1)/25;
pos(i, 2) = position;
i = i+1;
end
trial = pos;
trial(:,2) = 1.74*10^(-4)*(pos(:, 2)-960);
x = 0:1/25:5;

measured = abs(trial);
[num, loc] = findpeaks(measured', x);
fitobject = fit(loc',num','exp1');

hold off
fitobject.b
friction = -2*mass*fitobject.b
log(6, :) = [6, mass, fitobject.b, -2*mass*fitobject.b];

f = figure;
p = uipanel('Parent',f,'BorderType','none');
p.Title = 'Trial x, m = 0.x';
p.TitlePosition = 'centertop';
p.FontSize = 12;
p.FontWeight = 'bold';

subplot(2,1,1,'Parent',p)
plot(x, trial, 'b')
xlabel('Time (s)')
ylabel('Displacement (m)')
title('Movement')

subplot(2,1,2,'Parent',p)
scatter(x, measured, 'b*')
hold on;
plot(x, measured)
scatter(loc, num);
plot(fitobject)
title('Amplitudes')
xlabel('Time (s)')
ylabel('Displacement (m)')
 Fredrik Arentz 17

Data from Experiment 1.60 -0.090 3.32 0.006

Trial 1 1.64 -0.071 3.36 -0.006
Time (s) Displacement (m) 1.68 -0.054 3.40 -0.028
0.00 0.149 1.72 -0.044 3.44 -0.046
0.04 0.141 1.76 -0.001 3.48 -0.051
0.08 0.118 1.80 0.037 3.52 -0.048
0.12 0.038 1.84 0.076 3.56 -0.046
0.16 0.007 1.88 0.077 3.60 -0.031
0.20 -0.079 1.92 0.086 3.64 -0.014
0.24 -0.082 1.96 0.079 3.68 0.007
2.00 0.045 3.72 0.029
0.28 -0.121
0.32 -0.136 2.04 0.011 3.76 0.040
0.36 -0.134 2.08 -0.017 3.80 0.049
0.40 -0.076 2.12 -0.039 3.84 0.046
0.44 -0.045 2.16 -0.064 3.88 0.041
0.48 0.004 2.20 -0.074 3.92 0.014
0.52 0.030 2.24 -0.074 3.96 -0.006
0.56 0.106 2.28 -0.071 4.00 -0.012
0.60 0.119 2.32 -0.038 4.04 -0.022
0.64 0.124 2.36 -0.028 4.08 -0.037
0.68 0.111 2.40 0.008 4.12 -0.043
2.44 0.042 4.16 -0.040
0.72 0.087
2.48 0.064 4.20 -0.036
0.76 0.066
0.80 0.011 2.52 0.066 4.24 -0.017
0.84 -0.029 2.56 0.066 4.28 0.001
0.88 -0.073 2.60 0.052 4.32 0.008
0.92 -0.102 2.64 0.039 4.36 0.021
0.96 -0.113 2.68 0.016 4.40 0.034
1.00 -0.111 2.72 -0.011 4.44 0.039
1.04 -0.057 2.76 -0.031 4.48 0.037
1.08 -0.013 2.80 -0.054 4.52 0.029
1.12 0.006 2.84 -0.063 4.56 0.023
1.16 0.046 2.88 -0.060 4.60 0.006
1.20 0.073 2.92 -0.046 4.64 -0.018
1.24 0.104 2.96 -0.030 4.68 -0.019
1.28 0.102 3.00 -0.014 4.72 -0.036
1.32 0.099 3.04 0.022 4.76 -0.036
1.36 0.054 3.08 0.035 4.80 -0.033
1.40 0.035 3.12 0.048 4.84 -0.024
1.44 0.004 3.16 0.059 4.88 -0.018
1.48 -0.041 3.20 0.053 4.92 -0.001
1.52 -0.061 3.24 0.045 4.96 0.020
1.56 -0.085 3.28 0.026 5.00 0.024
 Fredrik Arentz 18

Trial 2 1.64 -0.0910 3.36 -0.0100

Time (s) Displacement (m) 1.68 -0.0572 3.40 -0.0260
0.00 0.1500 1.72 -0.0390 3.44 -0.0459
0.04 0.1457 1.76 0.0310 3.48 -0.0518
0.08 0.1066 1.80 0.0508 3.52 -0.0473
0.12 0.0499 1.84 0.0681 3.56 -0.0342
0.16 -0.0103 1.88 0.0820 3.60 -0.0351
0.20 -0.0455 1.92 0.0862 3.64 -0.0003
0.24 -0.0912 1.96 0.0683 3.68 0.0080
0.28 -0.1398 2.00 0.0649 3.72 0.0290
0.32 -0.1365 2.04 0.0373 3.76 0.0430
0.36 -0.1144 2.08 -0.0122 3.80 0.0487
0.40 -0.0743 2.12 -0.0271 3.84 0.0461
0.44 -0.0316 2.16 -0.0703 3.88 0.0292
0.48 -0.0246 2.20 -0.0781 3.92 0.0259
0.52 0.0368 2.24 -0.0743 3.96 -0.0001
0.56 0.0840 2.28 -0.0715 4.00 -0.0169
0.60 0.1207 2.32 -0.0389 4.04 -0.0293
0.64 0.1246 2.36 -0.0161 4.08 -0.0411
0.68 0.1062 2.40 0.0290 4.12 -0.0437
0.72 0.1003 2.44 0.0430 4.16 -0.0432
0.76 0.0336 2.48 0.0644 4.20 -0.0375
0.80 -0.0039 2.52 0.0685 4.24 -0.0095
0.84 -0.0634 2.56 0.0689 4.28 -0.0097
0.88 -0.0931 2.60 0.0515 4.32 0.0042
0.92 -0.1146 2.64 0.0499 4.36 0.0277
0.96 -0.1111 2.68 0.0254 4.40 0.0393
1.00 -0.1044 2.72 -0.0023 4.44 0.0397
1.04 -0.0651 2.76 -0.0336 4.48 0.0390
1.08 -0.0510 2.80 -0.0598 4.52 0.0304
1.12 -0.0182 2.84 -0.0646 4.56 0.0169
1.16 0.0583 2.88 -0.0649 4.60 -0.0074
1.20 0.0789 2.92 -0.0533 4.64 -0.0069
1.24 0.0979 2.96 -0.0327 4.68 -0.0298
1.28 0.1002 3.00 -0.0131 4.72 -0.0342
1.32 0.0874 3.04 0.0178 4.76 -0.0359
1.36 0.0601 3.08 0.0375 4.80 -0.0352
1.40 0.0130 3.12 0.0468 4.84 -0.0263
1.44 -0.0233 3.16 0.0571 4.88 -0.0142
1.48 -0.0481 3.20 0.0592 4.92 -0.0070
1.52 -0.0639 3.24 0.0377 4.96 0.0139
1.56 -0.0866 3.28 0.0370 5.00 0.0202
1.60 -0.0904 3.32 0.0189
 Fredrik Arentz 19

Trial 3 1.64 -0.0897 3.36 -0.0032

Time (s) Displacement (m) 1.68 -0.0463 3.40 -0.0385
0.00 0.1497 1.72 -0.0059 3.44 -0.0433
0.04 0.1507 1.76 0.0181 3.48 -0.0527
0.08 0.1057 1.80 0.0289 3.52 -0.0472
0.12 0.0409 1.84 0.0739 3.56 -0.0419
0.16 -0.0068 1.88 0.0781 3.60 -0.0210
0.20 -0.0257 1.92 0.0859 3.64 0.0002
0.24 -0.0772 1.96 0.0692 3.68 0.0118
0.28 -0.1343 2.00 0.0555 3.72 0.0335
0.32 -0.1362 2.04 0.0145 3.76 0.0380
0.36 -0.1236 2.08 -0.0211 3.80 0.0487
0.40 -0.1123 2.12 -0.0435 3.84 0.0476
0.44 -0.0298 2.16 -0.0686 3.88 0.0398
0.48 -0.0092 2.20 -0.0730 3.92 0.0158
0.52 0.0386 2.24 -0.0743 3.96 0.0047
0.56 0.1018 2.28 -0.0551 4.00 -0.0191
0.60 0.1059 2.32 -0.0326 4.04 -0.0269
0.64 0.1247 2.36 -0.0315 4.08 -0.0369
0.68 0.1076 2.40 0.0074 4.12 -0.0427
0.72 0.0784 2.44 0.0346 4.16 -0.0398
0.76 0.0407 2.48 0.0621 4.20 -0.0333
0.80 -0.0176 2.52 0.0695 4.24 -0.0198
0.84 -0.0596 2.56 0.0666 4.28 -0.0006
0.88 -0.0956 2.60 0.0602 4.32 0.0047
0.92 -0.1031 2.64 0.0465 4.36 0.0241
0.96 -0.1117 2.68 0.0270 4.40 0.0384
1.00 -0.0990 2.72 -0.0216 4.44 0.0397
1.04 -0.0775 2.76 -0.0286 4.48 0.0394
1.08 -0.0579 2.80 -0.0521 4.52 0.0335
1.12 0.0215 2.84 -0.0632 4.56 0.0233
1.16 0.0393 2.88 -0.0637 4.60 0.0108
1.20 0.0826 2.92 -0.0489 4.64 -0.0116
1.24 0.1020 2.96 -0.0338 4.68 -0.0271
1.28 0.1036 3.00 -0.0210 4.72 -0.0348
1.32 0.0986 3.04 0.0214 4.76 -0.0360
1.36 0.0627 3.08 0.0249 4.80 -0.0357
1.40 0.0305 3.12 0.0468 4.84 -0.0238
1.44 -0.0274 3.16 0.0562 4.88 -0.0198
1.48 -0.0574 3.20 0.0557 4.92 -0.0068
1.52 -0.0803 3.24 0.0527 4.96 0.0063
1.56 -0.0841 3.28 0.0313 5.00 0.0192
1.60 -0.0946 3.32 0.0190
 Fredrik Arentz 20

Trial 4 1.64 -0.0423 3.36 0.0134

Time (s) Displacement (m) 1.68 -0.0546 3.40 0.0213
0.00 0.1499 1.72 -0.0632 3.44 0.0269
0.04 0.1274 1.76 -0.0509 3.48 0.0248
0.08 0.0924 1.80 -0.0431 3.52 0.0199
0.12 0.0406 1.84 0.0077 3.56 -0.0040
0.16 -0.0503 1.88 0.0347 3.60 -0.0118
0.20 -0.1311 1.92 0.0536 3.64 -0.0208
0.24 -0.1299 1.96 0.0553 3.68 -0.0239
0.28 -0.1250 2.00 0.0528 3.72 -0.0205
0.32 -0.0902 2.04 0.0241 3.76 -0.0107
0.36 -0.0521 2.08 0.0100 3.80 -0.0038
0.40 0.0441 2.12 -0.0198 3.84 0.0025
0.44 0.1084 2.16 -0.0426 3.88 0.0150
0.48 0.1213 2.20 -0.0517 3.92 0.0215
0.52 0.1044 2.24 -0.0462 3.96 0.0212
0.56 0.0827 2.28 -0.0297 4.00 0.0157
0.60 0.0391 2.32 -0.0092 4.04 -0.0007
0.64 -0.0433 2.36 0.0244 4.08 -0.0086
0.68 -0.0942 2.40 0.0392 4.12 -0.0108
0.72 -0.1082 2.44 0.0401 4.16 -0.0196
0.76 -0.1066 2.48 0.0444 4.20 -0.0191
0.80 -0.0739 2.52 0.0362 4.24 -0.0140
0.84 -0.0518 2.56 0.0066 4.28 -0.0068
0.88 0.0052 2.60 -0.0002 4.32 0.0020
0.92 0.0798 2.64 -0.0353 4.36 0.0076
0.96 0.0818 2.68 -0.0386 4.40 0.0152
1.00 0.0938 2.72 -0.0394 4.44 0.0160
1.04 0.0677 2.76 -0.0242 4.48 0.0096
1.08 0.0419 2.80 -0.0051 4.52 0.0088
1.12 -0.0050 2.84 0.0149 4.56 -0.0002
1.16 -0.0629 2.88 0.0222 4.60 -0.0069
1.20 -0.0824 2.92 0.0323 4.64 -0.0125
1.24 -0.0794 2.96 0.0347 4.68 -0.0147
1.28 -0.0674 3.00 0.0276 4.72 -0.0143
1.32 -0.0275 3.04 0.0139 4.76 -0.0068
1.36 -0.0094 3.08 0.0055 4.80 -0.0018
1.40 0.0449 3.12 -0.0165 4.84 0.0095
1.44 0.0682 3.16 -0.0274 4.88 0.0115
1.48 0.0714 3.20 -0.0304 4.92 0.0128
1.52 0.0641 3.24 -0.0246 4.96 0.0091
1.56 0.0398 3.28 -0.0226 5.00 0.0059
1.60 0.0153 3.32 -0.0042
 Fredrik Arentz 21

Trial 5 1.64 -0.0463 3.36 0.0197

Time (s) Displacement (m) 1.68 -0.0537 3.40 0.0209
0.00 0.1491 1.72 -0.0627 3.44 0.0265
0.04 0.1461 1.76 -0.0605 3.48 0.0220
0.08 0.1139 1.80 -0.0271 3.52 0.0153
0.12 -0.0074 1.84 -0.0230 3.56 0.0002
0.16 -0.0253 1.88 0.0213 3.60 -0.0165
0.20 -0.1160 1.92 0.0470 3.64 -0.0175
0.24 -0.1295 1.96 0.0578 3.68 -0.0228
0.28 -0.1153 2.00 0.0552 3.72 -0.0202
0.32 -0.0788 2.04 0.0444 3.76 -0.0162
0.36 -0.0361 2.08 0.0039 3.80 -0.0028
0.40 0.0674 2.12 -0.0054 3.84 0.0029
0.44 0.1077 2.16 -0.0487 3.88 0.0122
0.48 0.1218 2.20 -0.0474 3.92 0.0197
0.52 0.1220 2.24 -0.0456 3.96 0.0185
0.56 0.0687 2.28 -0.0256 4.00 0.0160
0.60 0.0593 2.32 -0.0016 4.04 0.0065
0.64 -0.0043 2.36 0.0120 4.08 -0.0067
0.68 -0.0577 2.40 0.0371 4.12 -0.0160
0.72 -0.0989 2.44 0.0457 4.16 -0.0188
0.76 -0.1040 2.48 0.0396 4.20 -0.0183
0.80 -0.0800 2.52 0.0367 4.24 -0.0159
0.84 -0.0445 2.56 0.0118 4.28 -0.0042
0.88 0.0132 2.60 -0.0152 4.32 -0.0023
0.92 0.0589 2.64 -0.0201 4.36 0.0090
0.96 0.0902 2.68 -0.0389 4.40 0.0160
1.00 0.0866 2.72 -0.0382 4.44 0.0160
1.04 0.0777 2.76 -0.0284 4.48 0.0138
1.08 0.0142 2.80 -0.0194 4.52 0.0017
1.12 -0.0245 2.84 -0.0052 4.56 0.0021
1.16 -0.0644 2.88 0.0173 4.60 -0.0105
1.20 -0.0689 2.92 0.0355 4.64 -0.0120
1.24 -0.0828 2.96 0.0341 4.68 -0.0145
1.28 -0.0617 3.00 0.0306 4.72 -0.0102
1.32 -0.0249 3.04 0.0098 4.76 -0.0076
1.36 -0.0144 3.08 -0.0070 4.80 -0.0033
1.40 0.0241 3.12 -0.0085 4.84 0.0073
1.44 0.0666 3.16 -0.0306 4.88 0.0104
1.48 0.0711 3.20 -0.0302 4.92 0.0128
1.52 0.0532 3.24 -0.0275 4.96 0.0102
1.56 0.0504 3.28 -0.0123 5.00 0.0066
1.60 -0.0089 3.32 -0.0046
 Fredrik Arentz 22

Trial 6 1.64 -0.0294 3.36 0.0138

Time (s) Displacement (m) 1.68 -0.0471 3.40 0.0206
0.00 0.1503 1.72 -0.0624 3.44 0.0264
0.04 0.1057 1.76 -0.0521 3.48 0.0273
0.08 0.1206 1.80 -0.0494 3.52 0.0215
0.12 -0.0171 1.84 0.0099 3.56 -0.0018
0.16 -0.1085 1.88 0.0197 3.60 -0.0091
0.20 -0.1174 1.92 0.0411 3.64 -0.0145
0.24 -0.1348 1.96 0.0572 3.68 -0.0241
0.28 -0.1291 2.00 0.0468 3.72 -0.0242
0.32 -0.0823 2.04 0.0458 3.76 -0.0100
0.36 -0.0669 2.08 0.0259 3.80 -0.0038
0.40 0.0320 2.12 -0.0040 3.84 0.0080
0.44 0.0831 2.16 -0.0421 3.88 0.0125
0.48 0.1122 2.20 -0.0517 3.92 0.0217
0.52 0.0995 2.24 -0.0466 3.96 0.0197
0.56 0.0799 2.28 -0.0429 4.00 0.0132
0.60 -0.0034 2.32 -0.0029 4.04 0.0063
0.64 -0.0564 2.36 0.0277 4.08 -0.0085
0.68 -0.0626 2.40 0.0242 4.12 -0.0083
0.72 -0.0915 2.44 0.0463 4.16 -0.0184
0.76 -0.1096 2.48 0.0449 4.20 -0.0167
0.80 -0.0649 2.52 0.0230 4.24 -0.0140
0.84 -0.0355 2.56 0.0008 4.28 -0.0036
0.88 0.0527 2.60 -0.0087 4.32 0.0002
0.92 0.0575 2.64 -0.0254 4.36 0.0120
0.96 0.0788 2.68 -0.0412 4.40 0.0144
1.00 0.0891 2.72 -0.0405 4.44 0.0155
1.04 0.0479 2.76 -0.0295 4.48 0.0102
1.08 0.0210 2.80 -0.0106 4.52 0.0006
1.12 -0.0038 2.84 0.0115 4.56 -0.0009
1.16 -0.0369 2.88 0.0144 4.60 -0.0082
1.20 -0.0850 2.92 0.0259 4.64 -0.0138
1.24 -0.0770 2.96 0.0351 4.68 -0.0141
1.28 -0.0698 3.00 0.0234 4.72 -0.0150
1.32 -0.0598 3.04 0.0030 4.76 -0.0097
1.36 -0.0161 3.08 0.0017 4.80 0.0055
1.40 0.0442 3.12 -0.0278 4.84 0.0112
1.44 0.0555 3.16 -0.0249 4.88 0.0111
1.48 0.0720 3.20 -0.0305 4.92 0.0128
1.52 0.0617 3.24 -0.0273 4.96 0.0087
1.56 0.0425 3.28 -0.0137 5.00 0.0050
1.60 0.0116 3.32 0.0024
 Fredrik Arentz 23

Works Cited
“Harmonic Oscillator.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 Dec. 2017,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator.