Hookes Law

Inquiry Lab
Naum Sennicov

Procedure:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Hookes Law apparatus was clamped to the table.

Hookes Law apparatus was calibrated.
Slot mass stand was hooked onto the Hookes Law apparatus.
Slot masses were placed one by one onto the slot mass stand.
Step 5 was repeated for all five slot masses, each mass was an increase in mass by
approximately the same increment as the previous mass each time, E.g. m 1= 49.95g, m2= 49.95g

+ 49.85g, m3= 49.95g + 49.85g +49.96g.

6. Each mass added was repeated three separate times to calculate the average affect on the spring
between the three trials. (Hookes Law apparatus being re-calibrated each time)
7. The slot mass stand was removed, along with all of the slot masses once all of the trials with all
of the slot masses were completed.
8. The next spring was hooked onto the Hookes Law apparatus.
9. The Hookes Law apparatus was re-calibrated.
10. Each hook mass was hooked onto the bottom of the spring individually, except for the last one,
due to the last mass and the mass used prior to it being so similar, the two masses were added
(hooked on together) for variety in results.
11. Each mass was put through three trials for a collected average of each mass affect on the spring
(re-calibrating apparatus between trials).
12. After all results required had been calculated, the materials were disassembled and put back into
their designated places.

Observation:
Masses (g)

FA (N)

Trial #1
(Extension in
cm)

Trial #2 (m)
(Extension in
cm)

Trial #3 (m)
(Extension in
cm)

0.01 g

0.001 N

0.1cm

0.1cm

0.1cm

Average of
trials
(Extension in
m)

0.00 1 m

Spring #1

Spring #2

Spring #3

49.85

0.489

1.2

1.2

1.3

0.012

99.81

0.978

2.5

2.5

2.6

0.025

149.76

1.467

3.9

3.8

3.7

0.038

199.76

1.957

5.1

5.2

5.4

0.052

249.79

2.447

6.4

6.5

6.4

0.064

20.04

0.196

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.002

50.03

0.490

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.006

100.09

0.980

1.4

1.5

1.6

0.015

200.23

1.962

2.9

2.7

2.9

0.028

400.41

3.924

5.8

5.9

5.8

0.058

50.03

0.490

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.009

100.09

0.980

2.2

2.3

2.2

0.022

120.13

1.177

2.8

2.7

2.7

0.027

200.23

1.962

4.7

4.8

4.9

0.048

400.41

3.924

9.7

9.7

9.9

0.097

Sample Calculations:
Converting from centimeters to meters calculation:

m
=k g
1000

1.2 cm
=0.012 m
1000

Ex:

Converting from grams to kilograms calculation:

g
=k g
1000

49.95
=0.04995 kg
1000

Ex:

Converting from kg to N calculation:

Fg=m g

Fg=0.04995 9.8=0.48951 N

Ex:

Average displacement of spring calculation (three values):

Avg=

d 1+ d 2+d 3
3

Ex:

Avg=

6.4 cm+6.5 cm+6.4 cm

=6.433 cm
3

Adding slot masses for total mass calculation:

mt 3=m1+m2+m 3

Ex:

mt 3=49.85 g+ 49.96 g+49.95 g = 149.76g

Slope calculation for graph:

Slope=

d
Fa

Ex:

Slope=

df di
Faf Fai

0.0150
0.9800

m
= 0.015306 N

Analysis:
The relationship between the amount of force exerted on the spring and the amount of displacement of the
spring is linear (when force exerted increases, then amount of displacement increases). Meaning they are
proportionate to one another. This can also be written as them being equal to one another. Therefore if the
force exerted on the spring increases, then the displacement of the spring would increase proportionately.
Because the slope stays constant, the slope inverse of the slope is the constant of the specific spring. The
constant is the factor by which the spring allows Fa and d to affect each other at a certain rate. If the
constant of one spring is double the constant of another spring, the force applied will be doubled, but the

displacement will be halved in the spring with twice the constant, and that will remain to be the
relationship between the two variables throughout all measurements, shown in the slope of the graph (half
the slope). The two variables will still affect each other in a proportionate way while the constant doesnt
change, if Fa is doubled, then d will double as well.

Experimental errors:

Major random error: The uncertainty in measurement, given by the tools precision.
Major system error: The friction within the spring hindering the extension of the spring, the more
the spring extends.
Measurement uncertainties:

A vg of trial s :0.001 m
T rials :1,2,3 : 0.1 cm

F a : 0.001 N
M asses: 0.01 g

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the purpose of the inquiry lab was to determine the relationship between the force applied
on the spring and the extension of the spring. Also to determine the proportionality constant for the
springs being used and what the proportionality constant says or means in reference to the spring that is
being extended. One major result found was that the relationship between the force applied on the spring
and the extension of the spring is a linear relationship, and can be graphed with a straight line with one
constant slope. The second major result being that the spring constant is the factor that affects the rate that
the relationship between the force applied on the spring and the extension of the spring affect each other
while being analyzed on one specific spring. Therefore the hypothesis was proven correct in terms of the
relationship between the two variables (force applied and extension).