phy 201
Your 'pearl pendulum' report has been received. Scroll down through the document to see any comments I might have inserted, and my final comment at the end.
** Your general comment, if any: **
** Your description of the rhythm of the pendulum when tilted 'back' **
The sound gets closer together. It is noticable pauses between the first few strikes then as the pendulum reaches its stopping point the strikes are almost on top of each other and there are not noticable pauses.
** Your description of the rhythm of the pendulum when tilted 'forward' **
The sounds get farther and slower apart as well as less audible.
** Your description of the process used to keep the rhythm steady and the results you observed: **
I started with the bracket on a flat surface and then tilted it forward in slight incriments until a steady sound was heard. I repeated the process with the new position and counted 16 strikes.
** Your description of what happened on the tilted surface (textbook and domino), rotating the system 45 degrees at a time: **
Instead of using a book I used a notebook with a small slope. In the first position the bracket was sloped forward and the strikes slowed and were less intense, 45 degree turn the pendulum hit slightly quicker and did not last as long as before, at 90 degrees the pendulum struck 1-2times and then fell of the bracket, another 45 slightly tilted up the strikes were getting closer together,at 180 degrees the pendulum strikes increased in frequency till stopping, another 45 similar observation as before, 90 degrees 2-3hits and then fell off, 45 similar to the first 45 observation.
** Your description of how you oriented the bracket on the tilted surface to obtain a steady rhythm: **
it would be sloped forward so the pendulum was not resting against the bracket. I would increase the slope slightly
** Your report of 8 time intervals between release and the second 'hit': **
.391
.328
.375
.375
.359
.375
.391
.391
.703,.843,.922,1.010
.750,.797,.844,1.120
.703,.850,.906,.984
.688,.797,.878.,.984,.
** Your report of 4 trials timing alternate hits starting with the second 'hit': **
These last four trials show if the pendulum is sloped forward the strikes will be further apart. This data states the strikes were decreasing in frequency as the pendulum came to rest.
** The length of your pendulum in cm (you might have reported length in mm; the request in your instructions might have been ambiguous): **
4.1cm
** Your time intervals for alternate 'hits', starting from release until the pendulum stops swinging: **
.112,.76,.90
** Your description of the pendulum's motion from release to the 2d hit: **
the first strike will have the greatest rebound, since it is destination was originally the extreme point
** Your description of the pendulum's motion from the 2d hit to 4th hit: **
the strike between the first and second hit rebounds less and takes longer than the first hit from release
** Your description of the difference in the pendulum's motion from release to the 2d 'hit', compared to the motion from the 2d 'hit' to the 4th hit: **
The rebound is decreasing but also the frequency. The second and fourth hit have similar rebound distances because the pendulum is slowing to almost a constant swing.
** Your description of the difference in the pendulum's motion from the 2d to the 4th 'hit' compared to the motion from the 4th to 6th hit: **
There is not a large difference since the pendulum is reaching a constant frequency but it is somewhat farther apart.
** Your conjecture as to why a clear difference occurs in some intervals vs. others: **
position of release may be closer or slope may need to be adjusted
** What evidence is there that subsequent intervals increase, decrease or remain the same: **
Should stay the same if you keep the same slope and release at the same position
** What evidence is there that the time between 'hits' is independent of the amplitude of the swing? **
I believe that length has a major influence on a pendulums swing however so does release point if its closer to the bracket it does not have as much rebound as if held further back
** **
2hrs
** **
&#This is a good report. See my notes, and see the link provided below. However, unless you have questions or additional comments, you may ignore the request for a revision.
&#
&#Please see the following link for more extensive commentary on this lab. You should read over all the commentary and not anything relevant. Give special attention to any comments relevant to notes inserted into your posted work. If significant errors have occurred in your work, then subsequent results might be affected by those errors, and if so they should be corrected.
Solution
Please respond by submitting a copy of this document, inserting revisions and/or self-critiques and/or questions as appropriate. Mark you insertions with #### and use the Submit Work Form. If a title has been suggested for the revision, use that title; otherwise use an appropriate title that will allow you to easily locate the posted response at your Access Page. &#