Hooke’s Law
Aim: -To prove Hooke’s law i.e. the extension of the force is directly proportional to the force applied.
– To find the spring constant of the spring.
Apparatus:
- Clamp Stand
- Helical Spring
- Mass Hanger
- Pointer
- Meter Ruler
- Measuring Balance
Method:
Elevating Essay Writing: Delivering Excellence and Literary Distinction
Crafting Essays that Leave a Lasting Impression
In the realm of academic expression, where words have the power to shape ideas and inspire minds, we stand as a beacon of excellence. As dedicated essayists, we take immense pride in our ability to weave words into captivating narratives, enlightening arguments, and thought-provoking analyses. Our journey as essay writers has been one of continuous growth and meaningful impact. Let’s explore some remarkable instances where our expertise has made a significant difference.
Guiding Students Towards Success
Our journey is intertwined with the success stories of numerous students who sought our guidance. In one instance, a struggling undergraduate approached us with an intricate topic in the field of sociology. Through meticulous research and a nuanced understanding of the subject, we formulated an essay that not only secured the student’s academic standing but also ignited their passion for social sciences.
Similarly, a graduate student grappling with the complexities of literary criticism found solace in our expertise. We delved into the depths of literary theory, dissecting texts and exploring nuanced interpretations. The resulting essay not only garnered accolades but also instilled a newfound confidence in the student’s analytical abilities.
Breathing Life into Topics: Examples of Our Endeavors
The Intersection of Technology and Society: In an era dominated by technological advancements, we embarked on an essay that explored the intricate relationship between technology and society. By seamlessly blending sociological insights with technological trends, we created an essay that resonated with readers across disciplines.
Environmental Ethics and Sustainability: With environmental concerns taking center stage, we took on the challenge of crafting an essay that delved into the ethical dimensions of sustainability. Through rigorous research, we presented a compelling argument that not only addressed the urgency of the issue but also proposed actionable solutions.
Literary Analysis: Unraveling Symbolism: Literary works often conceal layers of symbolism. In an essay dedicated to the works of a renowned author, we unraveled the subtle threads of symbolism woven into the narrative. This essay not only celebrated the author’s craftsmanship but also offered readers a deeper appreciation for the written word.
A Tapestry of Literary Accolades
Our dedication to the art of essay writing has not gone unnoticed. Over the years, we have had the privilege of being recognized in esteemed literary competitions that celebrate creativity and intellectual prowess. These accolades serve as a testament to our commitment to delivering essays that transcend the ordinary and venture into the extraordinary.
Literary Award Highlights
Eloquent Prose Prize: Awarded by the Prestigious Wordsmith Guild, this accolade celebrated our mastery over language and the art of storytelling. The essay that earned us this honor explored the nuanced emotions of human existence through a compelling narrative.
Critical Thinker’s Commendation: Presented by the Symposium of Intellectual Thought, this award acknowledged our prowess in critical analysis. Our essay, dissecting the philosophical underpinnings of existentialism, showcased our ability to navigate complex ideologies with finesse.
Literary Luminary Award: Conferred by the Literary Confluence, this award celebrated our contribution to literary discourse. The winning essay, an exploration of the intersection between culture and identity, captured the essence of diverse human experiences.
Conclusion: Pioneering Excellence in Essay Writing
As we reflect on our journey as essayists, we are filled with a profound sense of purpose. Our dedication to delivering exceptional essays that enlighten, engage, and inspire remains unwavering. Through intricate narratives, incisive analyses, and unwavering commitment to the written word, we have carved a niche for ourselves in the realm of academic and literary excellence. Join us as we continue to shape ideas, foster growth, and transcend boundaries through the power of the written essay.
-Hang a helical spring from a clamp stand.
-Attach a mass directly to the bottom of the helical spring and record the position of the bottom of the mass hanger relative to a meter ruler.
-Add masses to the spring and record the position of the bottom of the mass hanger.
Safety Precautions:
– Wear safety goggles to prevent any accidents that could occur due to the weights bouncing off the spring.
– Keep a distance from the apparatus.
– Be sure that the spring is tightly attached to the clamp.
– Do not play around with the masses or springs.
Data Collection and Processing
Uncertainty in a measuring balance = ±0.1g
To covert to kg = 0.1÷1000 = ±0.0001kg
Uncertainty in a meter ruler = ±0.05cm
To convert to meters = 0.05 ÷ 100 = ±0.0005m
Formulas
Absolute Uncertainty= Limit of reading÷2
Relative Uncertainty= Absolute Uncertainty ÷ Measured Value
% Uncertainty = Absolute Uncertainty ÷ Measured Value × 100
Force (Newton’s) = Mass (Kg) × Acceleration (ms-²)
Average Extension (cm) = Extension while loading (m) + Extension while unloading (m) ÷ 2
Spring Constant, k (Nm-¹) = Force (Newton’s) ÷ Extension (m)
Elastic Potential Energy (Joules) = 0.5 × Spring Constant × Extension²
Range Of Extension = Extension while loading – Extension while unloading
Random Error = Range of extension ÷ 2
Table 1– Raw Data Table:
|
Trial No. |
Mass (grams) ±0.1 |
Mass (kilograms) ±0.0001 |
Force Applied (Newton’s) F=M×g ±0.0001 |
Extension While Loading(meters) ±0.0005 |
Extension While Unloading(meters) ±0.0005 |
Average Extension =E1+E2÷2 (meters) ±0.001 |
|
1 |
10.2±0.1 |
0.0102±0.0001 |
0.100062±0.0001 |
0.036±0.0005 |
0.037±0.0005 |
0.0365±0.001 |
|
2 |
20.4±0.1 |
0.0204±0.0001 |
0.200124±0.0001 |
0.040±0.0005 |
0.039±0.0005 |
0.0395±0.001 |
|
3 |
30.6±0.1 |
0.0306±0.0001 |
0.300186±0.0001 |
0.043±0.0005 |
0.042±0.0005 |
0.0425±0.001 |
|
4 |
40.8±0.1 |
0.0408±0.0001 |
0.400248±0.0001 |
0.048±0.0005 |
0.046±0.0005 |
0.0470±0.001 |
|
5 |
51.0±0.1 |
0.0510±0.0001 |
0.500310±0.0001 |
0.051±0.0005 |
0.050±0.0005 |
0.0505±0.001 |
|
6 |
61.2±0.1 |
0.0612±0.0001 |
0.600372±0.0001 |
0.056±0.0005 |
0.057±0.0005 |
0.0565±0.001 |
|
7 |
71.4±0.1 |
0.0714±0.0001 |
0.700434±0.0001 |
0.061±0.0005 |
0.060±0.0005 |
0.0605±0.001 |
|
8 |
81.6±0.1 |
0.0816±0.0001 |
0.800496±0.0001 |
0.067±0.0005 |
0.067±0.0005 |
0.0670±0.001 |
• Calculations for trial 1
Force (Newton’s) = Mass (kg) × Acceleration (ms-²)
= 10.2±0.1 (g) × 9.81 (ms-²)
= 100.062±0.1 (g)
Covert the g to kg: 100.062 ÷ 1000
= 0.100062±0.0001 (kg)
Average Extension = Extension while loading (cm) + Extension while unloading (cm) ÷ 2
= 3.6±0.05 (cm) + 3.7±0.05 (cm)
= 3.65±0.1cm
In meters = 3.65±0.1cm ÷ 100 = 0.0365±0.001m
Table 2– The range of extension and the random error of the experiment:
|
Trial No. |
Extension While Loading(meters) ±0.0005 |
Extension While Unloading(meters) ±0.0005 |
Average Extension =E1+E2÷2 (meters) ±0.001 |
Force Applied (Newton’s) F=M×g ±0.0001 |
Range of Extension (meters) ±0.0005 |
Random Error (meters) ±0.0005 |
|
1 |
0.036±0.0005 |
0.037±0.0005 |
0.0365±0.001 |
0.100062±0.0001 |
0.001±0.0005 |
0.0005±0.0005 |
|
2 |
0.040±0.0005 |
0.039±0.0005 |
0.0395±0.001 |
0.200124±0.0001 |
0.001±0.0005 |
0.0005±0.0005 |
|
3 |
0.043±0.0005 |
0.042±0.0005 |
0.0425±0.001 |
0.300186±0.0001 |
0.001±0.0005 |
0.0005±0.0005 |
|
4 |
0.048±0.0005 |
0.046±0.0005 |
0.0470±0.001 |
0.400248±0.0001 |
0.002±0.0005 |
0.001±0.0005 |
|
5 |
0.051±0.0005 |
0.050±0.0005 |
0.0505±0.001 |
0.500310±0.0001 |
0.001±0.0005 |
0.0005±0.0005 |
|
6 |
0.056±0.0005 |
0.057±0.0005 |
0.0565±0.001 |
0.600372±0.0001 |
0.001±0.0005 |
0.0005±0.0005 |
|
7 |
0.061±0.0005 |
0.060±0.0005 |
0.0605±0.001 |
0.700434±0.0001 |
0.001±0.0005 |
0.0005±0.0005 |
|
8 |
0.067±0.0005 |
0.067±0.0005 |
0.0670±0.001 |
0.800496±0.0001 |
0.000±0.0005 |
0.0000±0.0005 |
•Calculations for trial 1
Force (Newton’s) = Mass (kg) × Acceleration (ms-²)
= 10.2±0.1 (g) × 9.81 (ms-²)
= 100.062±0.1 (g)
Covert the g to kg: 100.062 ÷ 1000
= 0.100062±0.0001 (kg)
Average Extension = Extension while loading (cm) + Extension while unloading (cm) ÷ 2
= 3.6±0.05 (cm) + 3.7±0.05 (cm)
= 3.65±0.1cm
In meters = 3.65±0.1cm ÷ 100 = 0.0365±0.001m
Range Of Extension = Maximum Value – Minimum Value
= 0.037±0.0005 – 0.036±0.0005
= 0.001±0.005 (m)
Random Error = Range of extension ÷ 2
= 0.001±0.005 ÷ 2
= 0.0005±0.0005 (m)
Table 3– Processed Data Table:
|
Trial No. |
Force Applied (Newton’s) F=M×g ±0.0001 |
Average Extension =E1+E2÷2 (meters) ±0.001 |
Spring Constant, k (Nm) % Uncertainty |
Elastic Potential Energy (Joules) % Uncertainty |
|
1 |
0.100062±0.0001 |
0.0365±0.001 |
2.74±2.8% |
0.0018251825±8.3% |
|
2 |
0.200124±0.0001 |
0.0395±0.001 |
5.01±2.6% |
0.0039084263±7.7% |
|
3 |
0.300186±0.0001 |
0.0425±0.001 |
7.06±2.4% |
0.0063760625±7.1% |
|
4 |
0.400248±0.0001 |
0.0470±0.001 |
8.52±2.1% |
0.0094103410±6.4% |
|
5 |
0.500310±0.0001 |
0.0505±0.001 |
9.91±2.0% |
0.0126364880±6.0% |
|
6 |
0.600372±0.0001 |
0.0565±0.001 |
10.6±1.8% |
0.01721974±5.3% |
|
7 |
0.700434±0.0001 |
0.0605±0.001 |
11.6±1.7% |
0.02122945±5.0% |
|
8 |
0.800496±0.0001 |
0.0670±0.001 |
11.9±1.5% |
0.02670955±4.5% |
•Calculations for trial 1
Force (Newton’s) = Mass (kg) × Acceleration (ms-²)
= 10.2±0.1 (g) × 9.81 (ms-²)
= 100.062±0.1 (g)
Covert the g to kg: 100.062 ÷ 1000
= 0.100062±0.0001 (kg)
Average Extension = Extension while loading (cm) + Extension while unloading (cm) ÷ 2
= 3.6±0.05 (cm) + 3.7±0.05 (cm)
= 3.65±0.1cm
In meters = 3.65±0.1cm ÷ 100 = 0.0365±0.001m
Spring Constant = Force (Newton’s) ÷ Extension (m)
= 0.100062±0.0001 (N) ÷ 0.0365±0.001 (m)
% Uncertainty for Force = Absolute Uncertainty ÷ Measured Value × 100
= 0.0001 ÷ 0.100062 × 100
= 0.1%
% Uncertainty for Extension = Absolute Uncertainty ÷ Measured Value × 100
= 0.001 ÷ 0.0365 × 100
= 2.7%
Spring Constant = 0.100062±0.1% (N) ÷ 0.0365±2.7% (m)
= 2.74±2.8% Nm-¹
Elastic Potential Energy = 0.5 × Spring Constant × Extension²
= 0.5 × 2.74±2.8% × (0.0365±0.001) ²
= 0.5 × 2.74±2.8% × (0.001332255±5.5%)
= 0.00183±8.3%
Conclusion & Evaluation
Conclusion:
In this experiment, I have been quite successful by proving the aim of the experiment which is Hooke’s Law. The results obtained are slightly incorrect due to any errors as part of the experiment. My calculations were all shown for trial one which whereas follows. In relation to the graph, the line does not pass through the origin as there were uncertainties. The line therefore starts a few cm from the origin on the y axis. The slope in the graph indicates the spring constant. It can be seen that the spring constant value in the graph does not match my result for trial no.1 as I have taken the spring constant value in N/cm. If I take the values in N/m and average all the values of the spring constant from my calculations I will end with a result equal to the gradient or slope of the graph that is 0.227. The units taken for every other value is standard and therefore is correct. My results are reliable as they do result in the Force being proportional to the Extension. I feel that my data is reliable and the graph does show that the extension of the spring directly proportional to the force that is applied to it. We also found that the spring constant and the elastic potential energy increases due to the extension of the spring being proportional to the force.
Evaluation:
I have found that the experiment did have many errors which could have been improved. There were both systematic and random errors involved in the experiment. The meter ruler (uncertainty of ±0.05cm) and the digital balance (uncertainty of ±0.1g) had uncertainty’s which could have altered the accuracy of the results. The experiment also had a parallax error due to the carelessness of me not observing the pointer and the length in the straight path. My equipment was not very accurate as I was given a meter ruler and not an attached ruler. This could have made it very inaccurate as the ruler was leaning over a wall. I could only take one reading per mass, as time management was an issue, which is not reliable as taking more than two readings and averaging the answer will give a more accurate result. The next time I perform this experiment, I will need to make sure that I have at least three readings per mass and should take the average of the three readings to minimize the errors. I should also make sure that the meter ruler is not leaning on a wall and that it is held on by a clamp or that I have the ruler stuck behind the clamp stand. While repeating the experiment one should also put a pointer on the hook to avoid parallax error and get the measurements even more accurate
