When the potential force has been applied, one end and suspend sequence of masses are fixed to measure the spring extension.
Aim: To observe if an extendable spring obeys hook’s law.
Prediction: When applying masses expands a spring it will go back to its normal shape in order to obey the hook’s law.
Apparatus
*Clamp
*Clamp Stand
*Ruler
*Hangar
*Slotted Mass
*Spring
*Celotape.
Safety:
- Stand up while doing the experiment to avoid injuries when masses mistakely dropped.
- Handle the mass with care
- Use a reasonable surface area to place clam stand
- Keep feet out of the area in which masses could fall if the spring happens to break.
- Before start using spring check if they’re pressed against each other, it happens that they are pressed against each other clenched them.
Method
*Collect the above equipment together
*Set them put on suitable area as in the diagram below
*On the clam Celotape ruler so it can stay next to the clamp stand.
*Place mass on the clamp to measure the extension.
*Add 1 mass to the previous mass or masses till it’s 10 in total. (As mass has been added to previous mass, measure the extension of the spring at each step)
*Take out the masses to see if the spring obeyed hook’s law. (This is when the spring its in the same shape it was before mass or loads are placed on it.)
Result table
Graph: (On graph paper.)
Conclusion. The result observed showed that in this experiment hook law has been obeyed. When looked at the result table, after all the loads are taken off the climb, it went back to its normal shape. This is because there isn’t any extension left on the spring. So there fore there isn’t any elastic limit on the spring.
This result support the scientific knowledge observed on hook’s law, which is when spring is extended by mass and they are taken off, the spring will go back to its previous shape before applying any forces to it. In contrast the graph seemed to show some anomalous result.
These anomalous results are on the following; load 2 which total extension is 7cm, load 9 which extension is 30 cm and load 10 which extension is 33cm.
The anomalous results were only discovered after the line of best fit was drawn. Thinking of what might have caused these.
It could have been caused by the inaccuracy calculation of line range or scale on graph. The reason why think that the anomalous result discovered on graph is caused by inaccuracy calculation of scale on graph, rather than the methods used, is because the method is very considered and well followed. Another evidence that it has nothing to do with the method but graph is because looking at the result on table before it was plotted on graph looks considerable and understandable, but when plotted on graph diversity information is giving. (This is only because they not meeting the line of best fit). So there fore to improve these, the scale line on the graph should be calculated accurately in order for every result to meet the line of best fit.
