Pendulum Lab
UNIVERSITY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Point Lisas Campus, Esperanza Road, Brechin Castle, Couva, Trinidad, W.I.
Program: National Engineering Technician Diploma Course code: ENSC 110D Class: Petroleum Lab Title: Pendulum with a yielding support Instructor: Mrs. Sharon Mohammed Full time Name: Kirn Johnson Student ID: 58605 Date: 28/10/2012
Title
A Pendulum with a yielding support
Table of Contents
1. Abstract
2. Objectives
3. Theory
4. Apparatus / Materials
5. Procedure / Method
6. Results / data
7. Analysis / Data
8. Conclusion
9. Reference
Abstract
Intent: To conduct an experiment to prove the yielding support distance is directly proportional to the period.
Results: d(m) | Time for 20 Oscillations (s) | Time for 1 Oscillation T (s) | T2(s2) | d3(m2) x 10-3 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average | | | | 0.24 | 31.50 | 31.47 | 31.44 | 31.47 | 1.57 | 2.46 | 13.8 | 0.21 | 31.0 | 30.97 | 31.09 | 31.02 | 1.55 | 2.41 | 9.2 | 0.l8 | 30.56 | 30.69 | 30.69 | 30.65 | 1.53 | 2.35 | 5.8 | 0.15 | 30.44 | 30.37 | 30.20 | 30.34 | 1.52 | 2.30 | 3.4 | 0.12 | 30.16 | 30.19 | 30.22 | 30.19 | 1.51 | 2.28 | 1.7 | 0.09 | 30.00 | 30.00 | 29.96 | 29.99 | 1.50 | 2.25 | 0.7 |
Interpretation: The lab was a success because it was proven that as length was of the length of the yielding support decreased, the period also decreased. A cause of error was due to human reaction time. Although 20 oscillations were counted, the person holding the stopwatch might have stopped milliseconds before
Program: National Engineering Technician Diploma Course code: ENSC 110D Class: Petroleum Lab Title: Pendulum with a yielding support Instructor: Mrs. Sharon Mohammed Full time Name: Kirn Johnson Student ID: 58605 Date: 28/10/2012
Title
A Pendulum with a yielding support
Table of Contents
1. Abstract
2. Objectives
3. Theory
4. Apparatus / Materials
5. Procedure / Method
6. Results / data
7. Analysis / Data
8. Conclusion
9. Reference
Abstract
Intent: To conduct an experiment to prove the yielding support distance is directly proportional to the period.
Results: d(m) | Time for 20 Oscillations (s) | Time for 1 Oscillation T (s) | T2(s2) | d3(m2) x 10-3 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | Average | | | | 0.24 | 31.50 | 31.47 | 31.44 | 31.47 | 1.57 | 2.46 | 13.8 | 0.21 | 31.0 | 30.97 | 31.09 | 31.02 | 1.55 | 2.41 | 9.2 | 0.l8 | 30.56 | 30.69 | 30.69 | 30.65 | 1.53 | 2.35 | 5.8 | 0.15 | 30.44 | 30.37 | 30.20 | 30.34 | 1.52 | 2.30 | 3.4 | 0.12 | 30.16 | 30.19 | 30.22 | 30.19 | 1.51 | 2.28 | 1.7 | 0.09 | 30.00 | 30.00 | 29.96 | 29.99 | 1.50 | 2.25 | 0.7 |
Interpretation: The lab was a success because it was proven that as length was of the length of the yielding support decreased, the period also decreased. A cause of error was due to human reaction time. Although 20 oscillations were counted, the person holding the stopwatch might have stopped milliseconds before