• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18

Damping of an mechanic oscillator.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Damping of an mechanic oscillator

Introduction

An object oscillates when it moves back and forth repeatedly, on either side of some fixed position (centre). If we stop it from oscillating, it returns to it original position. This sort object is called an oscillator. Vibrations exist in two types: free and forced. An object experiences forced oscillations when its frequency (number of vibrations per second) is not its natural frequency of vibrations. If its frequency of vibrations is its natural one, it will then experience free vibrations.

When the amplitude of oscillations of an object remains the same as it goes back and forth, the oscillations of that object are harmonic. And if the amplitude decreases instead, it is said that oscillations are damped and the phenomenon is called damping.

In this experiment, I will study what might affect damping and then measure it.

Study of some oscillators

  1. A mass-spring system

I set using a tall stand, springs, a hanger and three 50gram masses, a system that I got to oscillate. I hold and displaced slightly the masses vertically downwards making sure I don’t deform any of the springs and released it. As a let it oscillate for a few minutes, I noticed that the displacement (from the originial position) of the oscillations was deceasing for the system of masses tended to return back to its original position. The room in which I processed this experiment but I could hear a small sound caused by the conpression and extension of springs.

  1. A pendulum

I set a piece of string of about a metre long that I rolled and attached one end on a cork pad, and at the other end I fixed a small sphere mass. I pull the mass some distance sideways and let it go.

...read more.

Middle

image13.pngimage13.pngimage09.pngimage09.png

image24.pngimage19.pngimage02.pngimage17.pngimage01.png

         t1/2

image25.pngimage02.pngimage01.png

         t1/2image03.png

image26.pngimage01.png

         t1/2image04.png

Interpretation

We observed this and besides looking at the graph, we can clearly see that the gradient is large at the beginning and gets less steeper towards the end so the change in amplitude is fast at the beginning but slower towards the end. And this makes sense since the amplitude decreases with the amount of starting amplitude.

Modifications and improvement

  1. Reading of amplitude

The reading of the amplitude was generally bad since marks on the scale are too close together an the chances to read (human judgement) the wrong one were high. Using a graph paper stuck on the table (it would move if not), we can draw lines of fixed amplitudes. A maximum amplitude of 10.0cm to allow the steel blade to oscillate for a considerable time before we start recording measurements.

  1. Timing

I could not feel confident with the time since each signal was suddent, and so the reaction time of the timer high. We wanted reaction  to be as small as possible so that our experiment would be reliable. To do that, when I had to record the time, my partner would say to me <get ready>, <get ready>, <it’s near>, <it’s near>, <almost there>, <NOW!>. I would have had enough time to concentrate and focus on starting and reseting the stopclock and so my reaction time would be very small. I had to the same for my partner when she had the turn to measure the time. To estimate the reaction time, we did a very simple test using a ruler. I vertically hold the lower end of the ruler (assumed to be 0cm). My parner hold a stopclock. She said: <get ready>, <steady>, <NOW!

...read more.

Conclusion

:2.67px;">image08.png

To find the average half life, I summed them all then divided by 4.

t1/2(average) = (57.5s + 57.5s+ 60.0s + 57.5s)/4 = 58.1s

The relation relating half life and decay constant is t1/2(average) = 0.693/λ so

58.1= 0.693/λ and then λ = 0.693/58.1s = 0.0119s-1

Half life measured t1/2 (s)image10.png

t1/2 initial    t1/2 final       t1/2

Average half file

t1/2               (s)

Decay constant

λ    

(s-1)

17.5

75.0

57.5

58.1

0.0119

75.0

132.5

57.5

132.5

192.5

60.0

192.5

250.0

57.5

image28.pngimage11.pngimage06.pngimage12.pngimage06.pngimage12.png

                 10             55          102.5                    150               250

        45         45              47.5                50image08.pngimage07.pngimage08.pngimage07.pngimage08.pngimage07.pngimage07.pngimage08.png

t1/2(average) = (45.0s + 47.5s + 47.5s + 50.0s)/4 = 47.5s

λ = 0.693/47.5s = 0.0146s-1

Half life measured t1/2(s)

image10.png

t1/2 initial    t1/2 final       t1/2

Average half file

t1/2               (s)

Decay constant

λ

(s-1)

10.0

55.0

45.0

47.5

0.0146

55.0

102.5

47.5

102.5

150.0

47.5

150.0

200.0

50.0

image29.pngimage14.pngimage14.pngimage11.pngimage12.pngimage12.png

                7.5           42.5                75                 110            145                

        35s        32.5s        35s                   35simage07.pngimage07.pngimage07.pngimage08.pngimage08.pngimage07.pngimage08.pngimage08.png

1/2(average) = (35.0s + 32.5s + 35.0s + 35.0s)/4 = 34.4s

λ = 0.693/34.4s = 0.0201s-1

Half life measured t1/2 (s)

image10.png

t1/2 initial   t1/2 final       t1/2

Average half file

t1/2               (s)

Decay constant

λ  

(s-1)

7.5

42.5

35.0

34.4

0.0201

42.5

75.0

32.5

75.0

110.0

35.0

110.0

145.0

35.0

image30.pngimage06.pngimage15.pngimage16.pngimage15.pngimage06.png

                 12.5                   50           87.5           124.5         162.5

                             37.5s               37.5s           37s            38simage08.pngimage07.pngimage07.pngimage07.pngimage07.pngimage08.pngimage08.pngimage08.png

t1/2(average) = (37.5s + 37.5s + 37.0s + 38.0s)/4 = 37.5s

λ = 0.693/37.5s = 0.0185s-1

Half life measured t1/2 (s)

image10.png

t1/2 initial    t1/2 final       t1/2

Average half file t1/2               (s)

Decay constant

λ    

(s-1)

12.5

50

37.5

37.5

0.0185

50

87.5

37.5

87.5

124.5

37

124.5

162.5

38

image31.pngimage15.pngimage12.pngimage06.pngimage18.pngimage18.png

                  5                 29                             53              76                    100

         24s              24s              23s         25s

t1/2(average) = (24.0s + 24.0s + 23.0s + 25.0s)/4 = 24.0s

λ = 0.693/24.0s = 0.0289s-1

Half life measured t1/2 (s)

t1/2 initial   t1/2 final       t1/2

Average half file t1/2               (s)

Decay constant  λ

(s-1)

5.0

29.0

24.0

24.0

0.0289

29.0

53.0

24.0

53.0

76.0

23.0

75.0

100.0

25.0

image33.png

               0               24              46                      68              94

                               24s            22s        22s                    26s

t1/2(average) = (24.0s + 22.0s + 22.0s + 26.0s)/4 = 23.5s

λ = 0.693/23.5s = 0.0295s-1

Half life measured t1/2 (s)

t1/2 initial   t1/2 final       t1/2

Average half file t1/2               (s)

Decay constant λ

(s-1)

0.0

24.0

24.0

23.5

0.0295

24.0

46.0

22.0

46.0

68.0

22.0

68.0

94.0

26.0

Theory

...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Waves & Cosmology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Waves & Cosmology essays

  1. An investigation into the time period of a mass-spring oscillating system.

    We know this because the difference in the time periods decreased as we increased the weight, showing that the energy delivered to make the weights oscillate must increase. My hypothesis that the time periods would increase with more mass was proven correct by my first two graphs, but I did

  2. Determine the value of 'g', where 'g' is the acceleration due to gravity.

    According to the published value table, it should be 9.81ms-2. I can see that my value of gravity was out by 0.43ms-2. This enabled me to realize that there is an error in my value of gravity, which I have calculated below: Maximum error = 10.94-9.38 = 1.56 Minimum error

  1. I am doing an investigation in to how much a metre rule bends when ...

    Provided the length of the rule hanging over the table is kept constant, the mass is doubling each time it is altered so that we can tell whether it is quantitative, thus proving my hypothesis correct, and I consistently measure the bend accurately and at the same height from the

  2. Making sense of data - finding a value for the young modulus of a ...

    Random errors in the experiment were; the weights hung on different positions at one end of the ruler. The overhang of the ruler slightly varied as different sides of the ruler used to find out the deflection with the same weights to give an average value for the deflection of the ruler.

  1. Simple Harmonic Motion of a mass-spring system.

    Two to three trials were performed. The timing was then repeated twice. The results were recorded to find out the mean time and the period of oscillation of the mass. 3. During the oscillation, the following points were observed: a).

  2. Investigation into factors affecting the time period for oscillations in a mass-spring system.

    Stopwatch �0.01s - From preliminary experimentation I know that the smallest time I will probably have to measure will be around 6-7 seconds. This means than the largest percentage error I should encounter in the timing will be around 0.17% which will be negligible in this experiment.

  1. The Stiffness Of Springs

    10.67** II + III + IV 87.6 90.9 + 3.3 I + II + III + IV 117.9 142.86 + 24.96 ** For the majority of these results the theoretical constants are quite similar to the actual constants. As my results are not totally accurate there is a large margin for error which would explain my imperfect results.

  2. Investigate any relationship present between the distance between a solar cell and a lamp, ...

    3.28 3.0832 1.5 0.6 1.62 0.972 1 0 0 0 0.5 Here are the results for the second experiment, where the distance between the solar cell and light source was varied to see the power output on the solar cell.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work