Laboratory Experiment: Dynamics Elementary Vibrations

Aim:
The aim of this experimental procedure was to find both the theoretical and experimental values of the natural frequency of a range of Mass-Spring-Pulley systems, and to compare the values obtained and discuss why they may differ.

Experimental Method:
For this procedure three differing types of apparatus set-ups were used. The first, a Spring-Mass system included a clamp stand, clamp, spring and a known mass which was suspended directly from the spring. As one slightly displaced the mass vertically downwards and immediately let go, it was noticed that the spring and mass oscillated following a simple harmonic motion. For this specific experiment we timed how long it took for a certain amount (thirty) of oscillations to occur, using the aid of a fiducial marker located on our clamp stand, and repeated this step two more times. The ultimate aim for this was to find the time period, which is how long it took to complete one full oscillation, to get this figure one must find the average time it took to complete the oscillations and then divide this figure by the number of oscillations counted, thirty in this case. Once the time period had been obtained, we were able to integrate this figure with the equation:

To find the experimental natural frequency of the system, and the equation:

To find the Spring Constant of the particular spring used. The value of the Spring Constant was the integral information needed from the Mass-Spring system as it would be taken on and used for the next two types of apparatus set-ups which included a clamp stand, clamp, the same spring used from the previous experiment, a mass, and a different type of pulley for each of the two experiments. A pulley is a simple device which eases the movement and transfer of loads by balancing the weight distribution and creating a smooth transition. Here we used the same method as before to find the time period of each system, by timing and averaging a certain amount of oscillations, to find the experimental value of the frequency. However, by using the Spring Constant figure, we can amalgamate it with this equation:

Thus calculating the theoretical frequency value for each experiment with differing pulleys. It is the comparison of both sets of these two specific values, and the discussion of why they may differ that is the ultimate aim of this procedure. We expected that the time period for the simple Mass-Spring system would be less than those which included a pulley as the added mass should increase the time for each oscillation, thus we could also assume, using the equations, that the natural frequency of the system with the pulley of a larger mass would be less than that of the smaller mass due to the lesser time period. One must notice however, that the masses of the pulleys have not been taken into account for our theoretical frequency equations.

Apparatus:
Clamp stand Clamp Spring (of known mass) Mass (of known mass) Big pulley Small pulley String Weighing Scale Measuring Tape Stopwatch Mass-Spring System

Mass-Spring-Small Pulley System

Mass-Spring-Big Pulley System

Results:
Initial Measurements: Apparatus Mass Spring Big Pulley Small Pulley Mass (kg) 0.35 0.006 0.27 0.01 Spring Apparatus Length (m) 0.14

Mass-Spring system: Firstly we started with the Mass-Spring system, for this we timed the length of time it took for the mass to oscillate 30 times, using a stopwatch, and then took the average of these results to then calculate the time period for one oscillation. These were the results produced: Mass-Spring System 1 9.1 Time Period (s) Average 9.68 0.323

30 Oscillations (s) 2 10.34 3 9.6

From here we found the experimental frequency using the equation:

Thus,

Using this value, and integrating this with the theoretical natural frequency equation we can find k, the spring constant:

Rearranging gives:

Mass-Spring-Big Pulley: We then moved onto the experiment involving the big pulley, however instead of timing 30 oscillations, we found that due to the added mass onto the system, the oscillations would undergo damping, thus the movement lost momentum before it reached the thirty oscillations. So we collectively decided to time 10 oscillations in this case. Once again the time period was found: Mass-SpringBig Pulley 1 7.65 10 Oscillations (s) 2 7.83 3 7.69 Average 7.72 0.772 Time Period (s)

We used this value for the time period to then obtain the experimental natural frequency:

Thus,

Then, using the third equation relevant to this experiment involving and the Spring Constant value k we found earlier, it was possible to acquire the theoretical natural frequency figure associated with this pulley.

Mass-Spring-Small Pulley: Using the same method as for the big pulley, the first step was to find the time period for one oscillation. Mass-SpringSmall Pulley 1 1.35 2 Oscillations (s) 2 1.3 3 1.32 Average 1.32 Time Period (s) 0.662

Next step, as previously done, was to find the experimental natural frequency:

Thus, And the theoretical natural frequency was found after:

Discussion:
Comparison of both theoretical and experimental natural frequency values:

Type of Pulley Big Small

Experimental Natural Frequency (Hz) 1.29 1.51

Theoretical Natural Frequency (Hz) 1.55 1.55

As one can see from the values obtained above, our initial prediction that the natural frequency of the system with the bigger pulley would have a smaller frequency than that which involved the lighter pulley was proven correct; this is directly due to the time period of the bigger pulley system being larger than that of the other. Using these values, one can find the percentage difference between them using the equation:

These reasonably small percentage differences show that our results are fairly accurate; and the difference between them could have been down to the energy loss due to experimental damping, as it is almost impossible to completely eradicate mechanical friction and air resistance. However we felt that the difference could have been reduced further, as the masses of the pulleys were not taken into account, we thought it would be interesting to see what the theoretical values would be if this was not the case, as for example the larger pulley weighed a substantial amount and would have obviously affected the result. This new value could be calculated by altering the equation so it read like this:

Subbing in the mass of the bigger pulley:

And the smaller pulley:

If the pulley masses were taken into account, the results table would now look like this:

Type of Pulley Big Small

Experimental Natural Frequency (Hz) 1.29 1.51

Theoretical Natural Frequency (Hz) 1.17 1.53

Once again evaluating the percentage difference gives us:

As one can see, by including the masses of pulleys, one almost halves the percentage difference between the values, this could prove to be a more accurate and reliable way of assuming the theoretical value. However there are numerous of other ways that this experiment could have been improved, thus developing the results further and reducing the chance of errors. A possible reason for the initial difference apart from the energy loss due to damping (which could have been eliminated if the experiment took place in a vacuum) could have been the added reaction time it took for us to start and stop the stopwatch, this error could have been reduced if the experiment was timed electronically using a data logger and computer to time the oscillations. Another area susceptible to error was the actual counting of the oscillations, we did use a fiducial marker to locate the start and end of the oscillation, but however human error could have occurred nevertheless. Horizontal movement (secondary mode) of the system would have also directly affected the time period produced, this could have been caused by the person who displaced the mass, or by the natural movement of the particular spring, the only way to rid the experiment of this would be to try and get a mechanical system to displace the system with as much accuracy and precision as possible. An analogue weighing scale was used to weigh all the apparatus, by using an electric scale would have improved the precision and reliability of our results. We kept the experiment fair by taking the average reading for the time period over a range of results, and using the same spring and mass for each experiment.

Conclusion:
Finding the natural frequencies of materials is important, for if you know how an object vibrates, you can enhance constructively or destructively against the waves created, thus stabilising or exciting the object. All in all this experiment went smoothly, with the results obtained verifying our initial theory and the difference between the theoretical and experimental being fairly small, thus proving a success and easily reproducible.

References:
1: http://www.engr.uky.edu/~egr101/ml/ML4.pdf0 - Website accessed: 9/3/12 2: http://ptumech.loremate.com/mv/node/2 - Website accessed: 9/3/12