Mass on a Spring

Does air resistance have a significant effect on

spring constant when calculated using the Simple
Harmonic Motion Equation?

Page1
Contents
Original Experiment
Plan………………………………………………
…….2
Method………………………………………..
…….4
Results and
Analysis……………………………6
Conclusion…………………………………..
……..11
Evaluation……………………………….
…………11
Extended Experiment
Page2

Plan……………………………………………………
.11
Method…………………………………………
…….13
 Results and
Analysis……………………………13
Conclusion…………………………………..
……..15
Evaluation……………………………….
…………15

Page3
 Original Experiment
My original experiment was to calculate the spring constant of a spring, using
and comparing two separate methods to ensure an accurate answer.

Plan
Hooke’s Law

The first method uses Hooke’s Law, to calculate spring constant. Hooke’s Law
states that the force applied to a spring is proportional to the extension induced
in the spring.

F∝x

Or
F=-kx

The proportionality constant, k, also known as the spring constant, is shown as

negative in the formula because the spring provides a restoring force. The hope
is that this method will result in a straight line graph when force is plotted
against extension, with a gradient of negative k.

The independent variable will be force. I will vary force to give me a range of
readings for extension, so that I can plot a graph and get a value for k. Extension
is the dependent variable. I hope to achieve a constant rate of change of
extension.

In this original experiment, I will make specific attempts to ensure the readings
are taken at the same temperature by using the same area in the same room
with the windows closed, and by taking the reading at similar times. I will also
ensure that I use the same equipment, to keep any errors created by the
equipment constant. The variables that I will assume are constant are spring
Page4

constant and the measurer, i.e. me.

Simple Harmonic Oscillation

The second method uses the simple harmonic oscillation formula,

T=2πmk

where T is time period, k is spring constant and m is mass. This formula is

obtained from the formula for acceleration at a given time;

at=-ω2xt
and the formulas for force;

F=ma

and

F=-kx.

The formulas for force are combined to give

ma=-kx

then rearranged into terms of acceleration to give

a=-kxm

This is subbed into the original acceleration formula to give

-kxm=-ω2xt

this is rearranged to

ω2=-kxm-xt

and simplified then square rooted to give

ω=km

this is combined with the formula for angular frequency, ω,

ω=2πT

to give

2πT=km

this is rearranged to give the original equation for time period, T, which I quoted
above. To calculate k with this method, I will again hang a mass from the same
Page5

spring, but this time I will induce oscillations of the same magnitude every time,
then I will time how long it takes for 50 oscillations to occur. Time period is then
that time divided by 50. When I plot time period squared against mass I should
get a straight line.
Method
Hooke’s Law

1. Set up the apparatus as in the diagram above, with no mass on the spring.
2. Measure from the top of the spring to the cocktail stick as indicated in the
diagram, using a ruler in a fixed position.
3. Add the mass holder and five 10g masses.
4. Again measure from the top of the spring to the cocktail stick.
5. Continue adding mass in 10g increments up to 150.
6. Once you have taken and recorded readings for each mass, repeat each
one a further 4 times.
Page6
Simple Harmonic Oscillation

1. Set up the apparatus as in the diagram above.

2. Beginning with the spring in its rest state and a mass holder with nine 10g
masses, pull down on the mass holder 2.5 cm. Ensure that you pull
directly down, to minimize any sideways motion.
3. Begin timing from the point you release the mass, and continue timing,
counting 50 oscillations. If the spring and/or masses swing side to side,
still count these oscillations, as this motion can still be described by the
same equation. Ensure that you are counting full oscillations, from the
bottom, all the way up to the top, and back to the bottom again.
4. Record the time for 50 oscillations, and add one 10g mass.
5. Repeat out steps 1-4 up to 150g, and then carry out 4 further repeats of
Page7

each.

To ensure that my calculations were as precise as possible, I used the same

masses at each stage, and weighed each one, recording their actual mass. I also
used a reaction time test to gauge the uncertainty in timing the simple harmonic
oscillation experiment. I scored an average of 0.259s, and have included this as
part of the uncertainty of the raw time.

Risk Assessment
The risks involved in this experiment were minimal, with the main ones being
knocking over the clamp stand or pulling down too far on the mass, causing the
spring to break. To combat these risks I will ensure that the stand is in a secure
place and limit pulling down on the mass to 2.5cm. This will also ensure that the
spring doesn’t break, reducing the risk of cutting on the sharp metal edges.

Results and Analysis

Hooke’s Law
The first results table is the raw results from the Hooke’s Law Experiment. It
shows the actual mass of each of the masses, and the extension which these
masses created for all five runs.

Table of raw results for "Hooke's Law" method.

Extension (m) ±0.0005
Mass (kg) ±0.01 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5
0.06 0.022 0.021 0.023 0.022 0.022
0.07 0.026 0.026 0.028 0.027 0.027
0.08 0.031 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.031
0.09 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.036 0.037
0.10 0.043 0.041 0.042 0.041 0.041
0.11 0.046 0.045 0.046 0.045 0.045
0.12 0.05 0.05 0.051 0.05 0.05
0.13 0.055 0.054 0.055 0.054 0.055
0.14 0.059 0.058 0.059 0.06 0.059
0.15 0.065 0.063 0.064 0.064 0.064
10:55:00 11:00:00 11:15:00 11:30:00 11:45:00 12:00:00
05-Jul 05-Jul 05-Jul 05-Jul 05-Jul 05-Jul
Page8

The next chart shows calculations, such as force and average extension.

Gravity = 9.8ms¯¹ Extension (m) ±0.0005

Mass (kg) ±0.01 Force (N) Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average
0.060 0.589078 0.024 0.024 0.025 0.025 0.024 0.0244
0.070 0.685118 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.027 0.027 0.0276
0.080 0.781256 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.033 0.031 0.032
0.090 0.881412 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.036 0.037 0.0368
0.101 0.989408 0.043 0.043 0.042 0.042 0.043 0.0426
0.111 1.088682 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.045 0.0458
0.121 1.189916 0.05 0.05 0.051 0.05 0.05 0.0502
 0.132 1.291542 0.055 0.054 0.055 0.054 0.055 0.0546
0.141 1.385328 0.059 0.058 0.059 0.06 0.059 0.059
0.151 1.481368 0.065 0.063 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064

From the force and average extension, I could the plot a graph to give me k;
force against extension. K will be given by the gradient of the line.

The data seems to have very close correlation, with no obvious outliers. As you
can see from the graph, the errors involved were small, and account for
differences from the line of best fit. The only real error came from the ruler, and
was because the smallest scale division was a millimetre.

Minimum and maximum slopes the graph are drawn through the largest and
smallest values, taking errors into account, like this;

This allows me to state the value of k as 22.59±1.15Nm-2.

The data’s reliability can be demonstrated with this chart;

This shows that the data points across each run of experiments were similar.

Simple Harmonic Oscillation

The first data table shows the time taken for the spring to complete 50
oscillations, and the mass that was attached, for all five runs.

Time for 50 Bounces (s) ±1

Mass (kg) ±0.01 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5

Page9

0.10 20.72 20.72 20.75 20.77 20.71

0.11 21.32 21.34 21.38 21.37 21.33

0.12 22.12 22.19 22.16 22.13 22.09

0.13 23.42 23.39 23.46 23.37 23.44

0.14 24.67 24.61 24.63 24.65 24.68

0.15 25.63 25.60 25.62 25.64 25.68

11:25 11:30 11:45 12:00 12:15 12:30

08-Jul 08-Jul 08-Jul 08-Jul 08-Jul 08-Jul

The next chart shows the calculated values of average time, time period and
time period squared.

Time for 50 Bounces (s) ±0.26

Mass (kg) Time Time
±0.01 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Average Period (s) Period² (s²)
0.10 20.72 20.72 20.75 20.77 20.71 20.73 0.41 0.17
0.11 21.32 21.34 21.38 21.37 21.33 21.35 0.43 0.18
0.12 22.12 22.19 22.16 22.13 22.09 22.14 0.44 0.20
0.13 23.42 23.39 23.46 23.37 23.44 23.42 0.47 0.22
0.14 24.67 24.61 24.63 24.65 24.68 24.65 0.49 0.24
0.15 25.63 25.60 25.62 25.64 25.68 25.63 0.51 0.26

This chart again allows me to plot a graph to calculate spring constant. This time
though, it’s a little more complicated, but can be proven by squaring the
equation,

T=2πmk

to get

T2=4π²mk

then plotting T² on the y-axis and m on the x-axis. This will make the coefficient
of x (i.e. the gradient of the slope)

4π²k
Page10

Plotting minimum and maximum slopes gives me the uncertainties;

This accounts for all errors, including the zero error. It gives a value of the
gradient to be 1.87±0.22, which gives the value of k to be 21.10 ± 2.4Nm-1.
Conclusion
Between the two methods there is an obvious difference in the calculated value
of spring constant. One gives the value to be 22.50±0.57, whilst the other gives
the value 21.10 ± 2.4. I would assume that air resistance is responsible for the
constant in the equation from the second method. The difference is small,
however I would assume Hooke’s law to give the “truest” answer.

Evaluation
My results in the Hooke’s law experiment were very reliable. I showed that with
the graph showing each of the runs of data against the measured values for
each. The errors were small because of accurate equipment and careful
measurement. Using a cocktail stick to minimize parallax error really helped, and
meant my results were repeatable.

The simple harmonic motion experiment had more errors. Whilst there were no
obvious outliers, the error margins were greater, due to my reaction times.
Measuring my reaction time improved the ability to estimate errors, and meant
that I could get a better estimation of the true value.

Extended Experiment
The extension to my experiment was to see if air resistance had a major effect
on calculation of spring constant, and if it could account for the differences
between the two earlier methods. This used the simple harmonic oscillation
method again.

Plan

Air Resistance
When anything is moving outside a vacuum, it is moving through air. The air
pushes back against the moving object, thus creating air resistance. Air
resistance is proportional to cross-sectional area and velocity. I know that for a
Page11

constant mass and area, the average velocity will be equal to the length of each
oscillation divided by the time for each oscillation. By
varying the area, I will be able to see how velocity and
area are related to the differences in spring constant,
and therefore the effect of air resistance. I will then
attempt to come up with a revised equation, factoring in
air resistance.

I have used the modelling program modellus to get a

model demonstrating the effect of air resistance, which
is modelled as a force. The equations used are;
The equation used takes the form of the first equation I used, Hooke’s law,
except extension and force are constantly changing here, and there is an extra
force “b” to model air resistance.

In the model, acceleration is calculated from force and mass, and in turn velocity
is calculated from a and x.

Mass is stated as 0.1kg and original extension (x0) as 0.1m. K is the spring
constant, which I set to 2.4Nm-1. These are not values I used, but they worked
well for the graph.

C is the coefficient of drag for the shape I had[1], ρ is the density of air at room
temperature[2] and A is the area.

The equation I came out with is F=-kx-(0.5ρCAv) this is based heavily on the
drag equation, but with a few differences, to improve the way in which the model
worked.

These values give me a graph that looks like this;

Page12

This shows that the force slowly decreases over time, as does extension. This
graph shows a realistic and gradual decay, with the 50th oscillation being at 32s.
I plan to carry out the simple harmonic oscillation method, but with varying
areas. From this, I will plot graphs of area against time period, to allow me to see
how the graph varies from that of constant area, and then take values from
these experiments and sub them into my equation to check it works.

Method

Page13

1. I first set up the apparatus in the diagram above.

2. Starting with the spring in its rest state, I pulled down on the mass 2.5cm,
and began to time as I released it.
3. I timed 50 oscillations, recording the time.
4. Next, I measured and cut a 25cm2 piece of corrugated card and added this
to the bottom of the mass.
5. I repeated the above stages and recorded the results.
6. I continued increasing the area up to 1225cm2, carrying out the above
with each area, and recording the results.
7. I then carried out a further four repeats for each area.

Results and Analysis

The first results table shows the raw data, including mass, area and 5 runs of
time for 50 oscillations.

Changing area
Time for 50 Bounces (s) ±0.26
Mass Area (m²) ±0.001 Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5
0.101 0.1225 28.40 28.36 28.39 28.38 28.40
0.101 0.9000 26.30 26.20 26.23 26.21 26.22
0.101 0.6250 24.20 24.13 24.12 24.18 24.21
0.101 0.4000 22.93 22.91 22.90 22.94 22.92
0.101 0.2250 21.77 21.79 21.82 21.81 21.80
0.101 0.1000 20.53 20.47 20.49 20.51 20.56
0.101 0.2500 20.12 20.08 20.11 20.13 20.04
10:25 10:30 10:35 10:40 10:45
09-Jul 09-Jul 09-Jul 09-Jul 09-Jul

The next table shows calculated values for average time, time period and time
period squared.

Changing area
Time for 50 Bounces
Run Run Run Run Run
Mass Area (m²) 1 2 3 4 5 Average Time Period Time Period²
0.1225
0.101 28.40 28.36 28.39 28.38 28.40 28.39 0.57 0.32
0.0900
0.101 26.30 26.20 26.23 26.21 26.22 26.23 0.52 0.28
0.0625
0.101 24.20 24.13 24.12 24.18 24.21 24.17 0.48 0.23
0.0400
0.101 22.93 22.91 22.90 22.94 22.92 22.92 0.46 0.21
0.0225
0.101 21.77 21.79 21.82 21.81 21.80 21.80 0.44 0.19
0.0100
0.101 20.53 20.47 20.49 20.51 20.56 20.51 0.41 0.17
0.0025
0.101 20.12 20.08 20.11 20.13 20.04 20.10 0.40 0.16
Page14

I can now plot a graph of T2 against area, which will show me the relationship
between the two.

This chart shows a close relationship between area and time period squared, and
shows that they are proportional. From the way that time period varies with
area, it is obvious that air resistance has a big effect.

If I use my values and mathematical model which I stated earlier, I get k to be

equal to approximately 23Nm-2.
Conclusion
My equation gave a value of k which I could estimate to be very close to that of
my original experiment, using Hooke’s law. This shows that I was very close with
my suggested equation. The difference that remains could be due to
measurement errors, or due to the equation not being perfect.

Evaluation
My equation worked very well, and had a low uncertainty. This was due to having
to do few measurements. However, I could only estimate the value of k that the
final equation gave me without carrying out complex measurements of force at
different points around the oscillation.

Page15