Waves on Elastic IA DCP

As I proceeded with the testing, I noticed that the string was not being
plucked in the middle every time. This could influence the results because
the string would not have oscillated at the frequency of the fundamental.
Also, the oscillating string was hitting the top of the photogate, which could
have changed the period recorded because it was not at its natural
frequency. Although we corrected this, the earlier results may have been
affected.

Raw Data Table

Length
L/m
0.01
1.02
1.07
1.12
1.17
1.22
1.27
1.32
1.37
Full
String
Length
L/m
0.01
1.91

Period T/s

Trial 1
0.112819
0.121208
0.128260
0.133772
0.138088
0.141695
0.145505
0.154405
String
Mass
m/kg

Trial 2
0.112880
0.121203
0.127022
0.132815
0.138000
0.140807
0.145758
0.154395
Hanging
Mass
H/kg

0.00001
0.03525

0.001
0.35

Trial 3
0.113334
0.121002
0.127410
0.132985
0.137807
0.141574
0.145900
0.154346

0.000001
Trial 4
0.113290
0.121034
0.127816
0.133600
0.137714
0.142085
0.146100
0.154254

Trial 5
0.113101
0.121154
0.128354
0.133900
0.137684
0.141438
0.146128
0.154200

Trial 6
0.113182
0.121114
0.128802
0.134400
0.137720
0.141277
0.146098
0.154200

The uncertainty of the lengths of the elastic was estimated to be 0.01m

because although the ruler was in increments of 1mm, the knot on the
elastic was tied in such a way that measuring it accurately was difficult.
The uncertainty of the period was the last decimal place on the software,
which displayed the data to six decimal places.
The mass of the string was measured on a set of scales which measured to
the nearest gram, so the uncertainties for its mass is to the nearest gram.
The hanging mass was measured on a different set of scales, so the
uncertainty is to the nearest 0.01kg.

0.11
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.15

Processed Data Table

Length L/m

Wavelength
/m

0.01m

0.01m
1.02
1.07
1.12
1.17
1.22
1.27
1.32
1.37

Average
Period T/s

2.04
2.14
2.24
2.34
2.44
2.54
2.64
2.74

Uncertainty
UT/s

0.1131
0.1211
0.128
0.134
0.1380
0.1414
0.1459
0.1542

0.0003
0.0001
0.001
0.001
0.0002
0.0006
0.0003
0.0002

The wavelength figures are calculated using the formula =2 L .

For the first row:
=2 L=2 1.02=2.04

The uncertainty of the wavelength is also 0.01m because the length of the
string was only multiplied by a constant.
The average period was calculated using the formula for the arithmetic
mean.
For the first row of raw data:
x=

x = 0.112819+ 0.112880+0.113334 +0.113290 +0.113101+0.113182+ 0.113292+0.113101 =0.1131

n

The average value is 0.1131s to 4 decimal places

The uncertainties for the average values are calculated using the half range
rule

U=

x max xmin
2

For the first row of raw data (to one significant figure):
UT=

0.1133340.112819
=0.000257 0.0003
2

The uncertainty for this average is 0.0003s. As it has four decimal places, the
average time period value has also been rounded to four decimal places.

From the graph, we can see that the gradient is 18.12ms-1.

The uncertainty of this value is calculated using the half range rule.
U=

20.6416.88
=1.88 2 ms1
2

Since this uncertainty is to the nearest whole number, the gradient value
should be 18, also to the nearest whole number. Therefore, the gradient is 18
2ms-1.
The y-intercept is

0.04662m and the half range rule is used to calculate

the uncertainty.
U=

0.1283(0.3681)
=0.2482 0.2 m
2

The y-intercept is smaller than the uncertainty, and will be assumed to be

negligible, as the formula

F
T

(where is mass per unit length and F is

force of tension) does not include a y-intercept. This formula is derived from
v=

v=

F
.

f =

F
T

The mass per unit length, can be calculated using the gradient of the graph
and the mass of the pulley weight. The gradient is equal to

F
.

F=mg=0.35 9.79936=3.429776 N
The percentage uncertainty is calculated by adding the percentage
uncertainties, where the uncertainty of g is assumed to be 0.00001 due to
the figure being displayed to five decimal places.
U=

0.01 0.00001
+
=0.03=3
0.35 9.79936

U=3 3.429776=0.1 N

Therefore, F is 3.4 0.1N

3.4
=18

3.4
=324

=0.0104938 kg m1
Uncertainty when squaring is calculated by multiplying the relative
uncertainty by the power.
U=

2
2=22
18

Uncertainty when finding mass per unit length by dividing force of tension by
the gradient squared is found by adding the relative uncertainties.
U=22 +3 =25

Final uncertainty of mass per unit length is:

25 0.0104938=0.003 kg m 1
Thus, the mass per unit length is 0.010 0.003kgm-1.
The actual mass per unit length, calculated by dividing the mass of the
string by the length of the string is:

0.03525
=0.018 kg m1
1.91

The uncertainty for this value is also calculated by adding the relative
uncertainties:
U=

0.00001 0.01
+
=0.006 kg m1
0.03525 1.91

Therefore, the actual mass per unit length is 0.018 0.006kgm-1.

Conclusion and Evaluation

From this experiment, it has been determined that wavelength is
proportional to the time period for a standing wave set up on a piece of
elastic, with a gradient of 18 2ms-1. It is proportional because the trendline
goes through 0, if the maximum and minimum gradient errors are taken into
account (the y-intercept of 0 is within the uncertainty). From this and the
force of tension produced by the hanging mass, the mass per unit length of
the elastic has been calculated to be 0.010 0.003kgm-1.
This is supported by the table data with the actual mass of the string
measured on a set of scales and the length measured with a ruler. The mass
per unit length calculated by dividing the mass by the length was calculated
to be 0.018 0.006kgm-1.
The findings from the relationship between wavelength and time period are
supported because their uncertainties overlap, so if a lower value (up to
0.006kgm-1 lower) of the actual mass per unit length was compared with a
higher value (up to 0.003kgm-1 higher), the values would be similar. Thus, I
am confident in the results because they fall within the uncertainty range.
The relationship between wavelength and time period of a standing wave is
supported by the formula

v=

which was rearranged to find the mass

per unit length.

The graph shows a systematic error because the y intercept is -0.04662m.
However, from the relationship in the formula, there should be no y-intercept
because there is no constant being added or subtracted. The y-intercept

should be 0, so this means all the results have been moved down. However,
this is not very significant because the y-intercept of 0 lies in the uncertainty
range of the y-intercept from the graph ( 0.2m).
No random errors seem to be evident on the graph because all of the points
are relatively close to the trendline (within 0.1m). This also supports the
quality of the data collected, because it means the repeated results were
precise.
Limitation

Explanation

Source of
random or
systematic?
Increase or
decrease
results?

Significance of
limitation

Realistic and
clearly
specified
Improvements

Measurin
g the
length of
the
elastic.

As we
measured the
length of the
elastic, it
stretched a
small amount,
which would
add to the
length value
obtained.

Systematic
error. This was
only used for
comparisons
with the mass
per unit length
calculated from
the
relationship. If
the length is
increased, the
mass per unit
length would
decrease,
decreasing our
results.

Quite significant
because if the
actual mass per
unit length would
decrease, putting
the calculated
value even closer
to the actual
value. If it had
been measured
properly, results
could have been
more accurate.

Lay the elastic

on the bench
before
measuring the
length, instead
of using our
hands to hold
the string. Our
hands would
naturally
stretch the
rope a bit,
while the
stretch would
be minimised
on the table.

The
elastic
was
hitting
the top of
the
photogat
e.

As the string
was oscillating,
it was hitting
the top of the
photogate,
causing it to
come down
faster than
expected. I
noticed this
and used less

This would
make the
period lower
than the real
value because
the elastic was
bouncing off
the top of the
photogate
before it
reached its

This is not as
significant
because although
the results and
the trendline
would be moved
downwards, the
gradient, which is
used to calculate
the mass per unit
length, would

This can be
improved by
using less force
when plucking
the elastic. The
elastic will not
hit the
photogate, and
the period
would be
closer to the

force when
plucking the
string for later
trials.

peak. This is a
systematic
error, moving
all period
measurements
lower than the
actual value.

stay relatively
similar, and
produce a similar
value for .
Although this
limitation was
fixed partway
through the
trials, the first
results had
already been
affected.

true value.

The knot
on the
string
was tied
in a way
that
made it
difficult to
measure
the
length of.

The
measurements
on the ruler
could not
measure
beyond the
knot on the
string;
therefore the
length value
obtained
would have a
greater
uncertainty.

This is a source
of random
errors (and
human error);
meaning that
some length
measurements
would increase
and some
would
decrease. This
increases the
uncertainty of
the results.

This is a very
significant
limitation
because it affects
both the
calculated and
the actual .
The actual mass
per unit length
calculated from
the table data
would have a
greater
uncertainty, and
there would be a
mismatch
between the time
period and length
values of the
individual tests.
The length
measured might
not actually
produce the
corresponding
time period.

This can be
improved by
using better
equipment.
Clipping the
elastic instead
of tying it
would make
the end of the
rope easier to
see and it
would be
easier to
measure the
length with a
ruler,
decreasing the
potential error.

The string
was not
plucked
in the

Although an
attempt was
made to pluck
the string at its

This is a source
of random
errors, because
this could have

This is not very

significant as the
centre of the
string was only

The method of
solving this is
to measure the
centre of the

middle
every
time.

centre, this
was not exact,
and this could
have
influenced the
results
recorded at
the start of
each trial
because the
first oscillation
was uneven.

increased or
decreased the
results
depending on
how far from
the centre the
elastic was
plucked.

missed by only a
few centimetres,
which would not
have influenced
the time period
much.

string, but also

only take the
last results of
every trial,
which would be
a record of the
oscillations
after the first
uneven waves
on the string.

Also, the time management of the experiment could be improved, as only

results for eight lengths of elastic were recorded. This was mainly because
too much time was spent on getting equipment and setting up the hanging
mass and knot in the right way. In the future, more time could be spent on
the actual trials because the amount of the hanging mass does not affect the
results too much.