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'
rhythm remains steady, and it remains pretty constant
Your description of the rhythm of the pendulum when tilted 'forward'
further apart, gets faster
Your description of the process used to keep the rhythm steady and the results you observed:
I moved the bracket slowly so therefore the pearl moved steadily,and hit it several times
You aren't supposed to be moving the bracket while the pendulum is bouncing.
Your description of what happened on the tilted surface, rotating the system 45 degrees at a time:
I didnt understand this exercise
Your description of how you oriented the bracket on the tilted surface to obtain a steady rhythm:
Probably put back on a flat surface
Your report of 8 time intervals between release and the second 'hit':
.01, .01, .001, .001, .01, .01, .001, .01
It is not possible that the TIMER program indicated time intervals of .01 seconds. Nobody is capable of clicking the mouse at intervals of .01 second. When you clicked the mouse as fast as possible, you observed time intervals which were usually between .1 second and .2 second. Also the pendulum takes far longer than .01 second between successive strikes with the bracket.
It is possible that you misinterpreted the phrase 'round your results to the nearest .001 second'. The TIMER gives results to several decimal places. For example you might get a time interval of .31785 seconds. Rounded to the nearest .001 second this would be .318 seconds.
Your report of 4 trials timing alternate hits starting with the second 'hit':
900, 865, 905,935 900, 856, 901,855 915,870, 915, 870 855, 885,820,840
Your instruction here was
'Report your time intervals for each trial on a separate line, with commas between the intervals. For example look at the format shown below:
.925, .887, .938, .911
.925, .879, .941'.
You do not appear to have used a separate line for each trial. Your data should read
900, 865, 905,935
900, 856, 901,855
915,870, 915, 870
855, 885,820,840.
It will be important in the future to use the exact format specified in each instruction.
Also your numbers are in the hundreds, nearly 1000. You don't get numbers of that size from the TIMER. What were the actual numbers given by the TIMER?
The length of your pendulum in cm (you might have reported length in mm; the request in your instructions might have been ambiguous):
45mm
Your time intervals for alternate 'hits', starting from release until the pendulum stops swinging:
60,72, 84
It didn't take 60 seconds, or 72 second, or 84 seconds between alternate 'hits'. Can you clarify?
Your description of the pendulum's motion from release to the 2d hit:
It starts out kinda slow but then it speeds up
Your description of the pendulum's motion from the 2d hit to 4th hit:
Well when you first start it acts like it wants to barely move, but by the time the second one comes around, it speeds up
This doesn't sound like the behavior of a pendulum which is being used according to the instructions. Can you clarify exactly what was done to obtain the behavior you describe?
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:
They are somewhat different by their motion and their speeds
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:
The first and fourth hit differ slightly and the fourth/ six hit differs alot more readily
Your conjecture as to why a clear difference occurs in some intervals vs. others:
Because you are not changing anything it stays in the same place
What evidence is there that subsequent intervals increase, decrease or remain the same:
You would expect them to increase because the different motions, locations, areas, and way you move it around.
What evidence is there that the time between 'hits' is independent of the amplitude of the swing?
I guess, that it's length would have a whole lot to do with where it actually goes and how far it hangs down causing it to determine how far it can swing out and how many times it will hit the object
Some of your results look good, but it is not always clear what your reported numbers mean, and some of the numbers you report are not possible.
Please see my notes and submit a copy of this document, with your comments or clarifications (or if necessary your questions) indicated by four asterisks ****.