Vibrations Practical Lab Report 2
Vibrations Practical Lab Report 2
Area (A
3
) = 45 1
= 584 cm
2
= 3.142(1.25)
2
= 45cm
2
= 4.909cm
2
Total area, A
t
= A
1
( A
2
+ A
3
)
= 534.091 cm
2
L
1
= (I
G1
+ mr
G
) / mr
G
VIBRATIONS LAB REPORT: SIMPLE PENDULUM 21
Hanging at point 1
8cm
Y 73cm
*Height = 1cm
Y =
= 36.5 (A
1
) 15(A
3
).25(A
2
) - 50.
A
t
= 19037.36 / 534.091
= 35.644 cm
To obtain I
o,
Moment of Inertia :
For component 1
I
01
= 1/12 ( mh
1
2
) + md
1
2
= 1/12 (0.65070.8
2
) + (0.6507(0.365)
2
)
= 0.1214 kg.m
3
For component 2
I
02
= 1/4 mr
2
2
) + md
2
2
= 1/4 (4.982 10
-3
0.0125
2
) + (4.982 10
-3
0.0125
2
)
= 9.730510
-7
kg.m
3
For component 3
I
03
= 1/12 ( mh
3
2
) + md
3
2
= 1/12 ( 0.04580.45
2
) + ( 0.04580.505
2
)
= 0.01245 kg.m
3
So,
I
o,total
= I
01
+ I
02
+ I
03
= 0.1214 - 9.730510
-7
- 0.01245
= 0.10895
kg.m
2
I
o,total
= I
G
+ md
2
Thus, I
G
can be obtain
I
G
= I
o,total
- md
2
= 0.10895 (0.6)(0.35644
2
)
= 0.03272 kg.m
2
Percentage Error
%
I
0
= I
G
+ md
2
VIBRATIONS LAB REPORT: SIMPLE PENDULUM 22
At point 1 :
I
01
= 0.1115 kg.m
2
(experiment)
= 0.10895
kg.m
3
(theory)
So,
Percentage error = 0.1115 0.10895 x 100%
0.1115
= 2.287%
7.2 Comments
During the experiment, we found out there are errors identified that affects the results.
The value k is different compare to the theoretical value because of errors as below;
- Human error This experiment is conducted by human so there must be some
error in terms of readings and procedure. Parallax error is one of the most
common errors in conducting the experiment and then, the handling of stopwatch
timing is not accurate.
- Device error The apparatus used is not reliable because one of the parts of
the apparatus (protractor) is gone but the angle still can be obtained by using the
protractor which is drawn by pencil.
- Environment factors This factor slightly can be taken as a minor cause of the
error. The experiment been ran out in a very conducive laboratory but
possibilities of the present of blowing wind must be considered.
Analysis
The mass of the pendulum does not affect its period because mass does not affect its
acceleration due to gravity. The acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the earth is a
constant 9.8 meters per second squared, which is not affected by the mass of the object being
accelerated in any way. This has been proven by Galileos experiment when he dropped two
different masses from a tower, and they fell at the same time. This also holds true for pendulums,
the mass does not therefore affect the period, and is not present in the period formula. We had to
divide the time by 50 vibrations as to get the average time of one period, due to the fact that our
VIBRATIONS LAB REPORT: SIMPLE PENDULUM 23
experiment included friction from the air. We called one cycle a vibration rather than a period
because the air friction kept the bob from reaching the same point again, it never completed a
true period. In a vacuum chamber, with ideal conditions, we would never need only one vibration
in order to calculate the period, because our amplitude would never change. During the trial, the
amplitudes fell, due to air resistance. The period of the pendulum is determined by length of the
string and acceleration due to gravity. If we were to go to the moon where the acceleration due to
gravity would be smaller the period of the pendulum would increase, there would be less
acceleration so it would move slower. To test the effect of different mass on the motion of the
pendulum, I would set up two pendulums. They would be in the same gravitational field, and in a
vacuum but would have different masses of bobs. They would be released from the same height,
and I would expect them to have the same period, and therefore swinging motion.
7.4 Error Analysis
In the torsion testing it was discovered through the use of the sample that ultimate shear stress
(USS) was approximately 72.43% of ultimate tensile stress (UTS). It was also found that the
small error margin in modulus of rigidity-2.95% was due to some irregularities in the
experiment. During the course of the experiment, the torsion machine malfunctioned between
data points 17 and 19 and the hand wheel could go back to the opposite direction of rotation
adjusting the reading and affecting the subsequent ones. There was slippage for some unknown
reason, and the machine immediately began reading roughly higher than it previously had been
reading. For this reason, the data from points 17 through 25 have been adjusted downward
linearly. The raw data and associated shear graph can be seen in the results section.
The experimental modulus of rigidity was reasonably close to its published value. The
experimental proportional limit, however, was not as close, and there existed a very large amount
of error with the experimental ultimate shear stress. As it is known there was a machine
malfunction prior to reaching USS, it is possible that our linear adjustment to these values was
not sufficient. Given both experimental USS and the proportional limit were off by more than
20%, it is also possible that the machine had not been functioning properly for a longer period of
time than was obviously visible between data points 19 and 24. Also, as noted in the experiment,
even with both degree indicators tightened, the 6 degree wheel and the 360 degree wheel did not
agree on angular measurement. For example, when 30 degrees had been achieved on the 6
degree wheel, the 360 degree wheel did not read 30 degrees as well.
VIBRATIONS LAB REPORT: SIMPLE PENDULUM 24
Another possible cause for the calculated value for the modulus of rigidity, being 2.95% different
from the accepted value for mild steel was perhaps the test rod specimen wasnt of a consistent
diameter. A varying diameter throughout the length of the test specimen would interfere with an
accurate calculation by varying the polar moment of inertia; J. Instances of a varying J value
would yield unique G values. Other sources of error present in this experiment include the fact
that the indicated angles were only read to the nearest half degree. This limitation prevented an
accurate measurement for the angle of twist of a specimen under torsion.
Improvements for this experiment are in order. From an educational point of view, the
experiment would be more interesting if the calculated modulus was used to identify the test
material. Another improvement would be to have clearly identified test specimens. As seen with
the discrepancy in theoretical and experimental G values for the mild steel, it is difficult to
perform this experiment successfully without the proper materials present. As noted, the
equipment lacked a torsiometer for accurate angle of twist measurement. One final improvement
that should be made to this experiment would be to use a strain gage and Hookes Law to
calculate the modulus of rigidity. The use of precise, digital instruments would also increase the
attractiveness of an experiment
Conclusion
The purpose of this lab, which was to measure the period of a pendulum and to measure the
acceleration due to gravity that is causing the pendulums movement, was achieved because of
the low reported present error, of 5%. Some sources of error include air friction, and the friction
of the rope, as well as the fact that the string was not attached to the center of the pendulum.
During this lab we learned about pendulums, the parts that make them up, and the different
things that affect their behavior.
From this experiment, we obtained the experimental value is slightly differs to the
theoretical value. From the discussion above, we found out the reading is not accurate.
Minimize the parallax error (reading been taken parallel to the eyes). The experiment is
best conducted in a vacuum. Precising the value by taking readings more than 2 or 3
times (during handling the stopwatch) and get the average. To obtain a better
experiment result, a new set of apparatus must be replaced with the unreliable one.
Since the percentage error is less than 15%, we can conclude the experiment is
succeed and the objective of the experiment is achieved.
REFERENCES
VIBRATIONS LAB REPORT: SIMPLE PENDULUM 25
- Engineering Mechanics Dynamics, 11
th
Edition In SI Units by R.C Hibbeler
Publisher : Pearson Prentice Hall
- http://cnx.org/content/m15585/latest/