Practical Discussion:

I placed and clamped the cantilever onto the edge of the table. I measured the
distance from the edge of the table and clamp to the end of the cantilever, finding
the length L as 1.538m0.001m. I then measured the time T it took for 20
oscillations of the cantilever for each different mass I decided on testing.

Accuracy Improving Techniques:
The first and most obvious technique I did was decide to do repeat each different
mass three times, finding the average of the three tests. I did this, as the human
reaction can be very inaccurate so averaging it can slightly decrease human error
and basically eliminates large outliers. If I did have an outlier, my other two results
would show this clearly and I would have to redo the test. Another technique that I
used was to try keeping the masses tightly secured to the cantilever to stop the
masses bouncing up and down within the Sellotape. Had the masses not been tightly
taped down, it would affect the time of oscillation as they are oscillating at a
different frequency to the cantilever. I made extra effort in insuring that the clamp
securely held the cantilever in place as the cantilever was of considerable weight,
and could have slid around. Had the cantilever not been securely clamped, it would
have made the time of oscillation slightly larger as more energy is lost in the
cantilever sliding around.

Limitations:
I chose to do my lower limit as 50g and highest as 300g. I didnt choose to do a test
with no mass on the cantilever as the time of oscillation is very fast and hard to
count and time accurately. I was told that the max weight that the cantilever could
withstand is 400g, and we were only given 300g, so I decided to use all of the 300g.

Control Variable:
The controlled variables in this experiment were the Length of the cantilever and the
flexural rigidity. However, I was only able to control the Length of the cantilever. To
decide the length, I simply placed the cantilever a few cm away from the wall, and
clamped it on. I didnt try give it a specific value as it would be too difficult. To make
sure it didnt change, I made sure the clamp was tight so it didnt shift around during
oscillation. However, one problem that I had was that the edge of the bench was too
thick so I couldnt fit in the wooden blocks to prevent damage to the cantilever. But I
dont think this would have affected the results of the experiment.

Uncertainties:
From my table, you can see that the absolute uncertainty for 20T gradually gets
smaller as the masses increase. This is due to the fact that with the lighter masses,
the period of oscillation is very fast, and it is easy to miscount 1 oscillation. This,
along with human reaction time, makes lower masses quite inaccurate. However, at
higher masses, the period of oscillation is higher, making it easier to count. Also, it
means that we can predict when the oscillations finish 20 cycles as it gives us time.
The uncertainty of the weight of the masses was too small, it was too difficult to
accurately plot them onto my graph, so I left them out. The time uncertainties after
dividing by 20, all were the same, as shown on my graph

Relationship:
After drawing my graph, I calculated the y-intercept and gradient of my line. My
relationship relating Time and Mass is:

This gives a gradient of 0.50.1.
The theoretical equation I was given is:

With the gradient equation as after taking out independent variable:

After substituting:
L = 1.5380.001 L^3 = 3.6380.0003
EI = 2.50.1 3EI = 7.50.3
The theoretical gradient is 4.380.09 after substituting in my constants.

My gradient is completely different to the theoretical gradient. For the theoretical
gradient to match my graphs gradient, one of the constant or must have the wrong
value. I am certain that it was not the Length, as the length of the cantilever must be
around 0.3 in the theoretical gradient to get a gradient of around 0.5. This definitely
can not be right. I believe that the flexural rigidity value (EI) we were given of
2.50.1kg^3s^-2 must be completely wrong. For my gradient to even come close of
the theoretical gradient, the EI value must have been around 250kgm^3s^-2 , which
is 100 times larger than the value we were given.
One thing that the theoretical gradient didnt have is a c-value. I got a c-value of
0.200.04, meaning that with no weight on the ruler, it takes around 0.2 seconds for
an oscillation.

Variables that could affect Result:
Had the Length L been slightly longer due to it sliding a little out of the clamp while
oscillating, the time of oscillation would increase. This would have increased the
gradient of my graph slightly as the mass attached to the end of the ruler doesnt
change while the time does. Another variable that could have affected the time of
oscillation is the distance from where the masses were taped down, to the end of
the cantilever. When I retaped the masses, they could have been slightly further
away or close to the end of the cantilever, effectively affecting the mass at the end
of the ruler. If the mass was taped further away from the end of the ruler, the
masses would actually have a lower value as the idea of Torque = Force x distance
comes into effect. If I taped say the 50g mass closer to the end, then my gradient
would increase as my weight, only in theory, increases, with time increasing as well.
While in reality the 50g mass is still shown as a 50g mass on the graph. The opposite
would happen if I taped the 50g mass further away from the end of the cantilever.

Another variable that slightly affects results is the weight of the Sellotape that I used
to tape the masses onto the cantilever. As I made sure that the masses were
securely taped onto the cantilever, I used a decent amount of sellotape, which I
measured to be 1g at the end after I completed the experiment. This means that my
masses were actually 51g0.1g, 101g0.1g etc. This means that the value of the m
is a little larger, meaning that my should be lower as all points move a little to the
right on the graph, with the c-value staying the same as there would be no tape if
there were no masses.


Real world situation:
This experiment is linking to a diver jumping on a diving board. In this experiment,
the cantilever is pushed then let go. In a real world situation, the diver jumps onto
the board, which exerts extra force onto the diving board. However, this doesnt
really affect the time of oscillation as the board exerts an equal amount up again. A
diving board is only slightly longer than the cantilever I used in our experiment, but it
has to withstand a lot more weight compared to the masses I used. A diving board
has to be able to hold 60-80kg, with the people jumping, while my cantilever only
had to hold a mere 300g. The large difference in mass means that the flexural rigidity
of the diving board material must be extremely high. But I still believe that my
experiment was quite accurate as the equation takes into account the EI, mass, and
length of the board.

Unexpected Outcomes:
Through my experiment, I had one unexpected result. It was while testing the 250g
mass. I had a time that was quite a bit higher than the others for the same mass. I
believe it may have been caused either by the masses bobbing up or the cantilever
gradually losing energy after ever oscillation. I might have started timing slightly late,
so the energy in the cantilever would have been lost in friction, so the period of
oscillation increased. I decided to redo this test and get a more accurate result. If I
left the time as it was, it wouldnt have made a large change in the graph, as the
other two times would have evened it out slightly, making the plotted point for 250g
only a little higher.