All texts belong to owners.

Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/

1 Research Question
The effect of varying distances of the pivot from the geometric center of mass of a meter rule on the period of its oscillation.

2 Introduction
2.1 Rationale
Traditionally, simple pendulums, a point-massed spherical bob extended from a thin wire of a negligible mass, were “the
basis of virtually all accurate time-keeping devices” (Fitzpatrick, 2006). However, for these traditional clocks, I had observed
that the use of physical pendulum that is “a rigid body with a distributed mass” (Grieve, 2001) throughout, had not been widely
utilized. Just as the length of simple pendulum effects its period, I questioned whether a factor that may contribute to the period
of a physical pendulum is the distance it is pivoted away from its center of mass. Therefore, this brought rise to the research
question to be investigated for a common object, meter rule that is a cuboid, found in a school based laboratory: the effect of
varying distances of the pivot from the geometrical center of mass of a meter rule on the period of its oscillation.

2.2 Derivation for the Effect of Distance from the Center of Mass on the Period of a Physical Pendulum
The period, T, for a physical pendulum follows the relationship in [1] for small initial amplitudes. Here, 𝑀 is the mass of the
physical pendulum, 𝑔 is the acceleration due to gravity and 𝐼 is the moment of inertia of the physical pendulum pivoted a certain
distance, 𝐷, from its center of mass. The moment of inertia, 𝐼, could be viewed as an “object’s resistance to change in rotational
motion” (McFatridge, 2003) or as an equivalent to the inertial mass, 𝑚, in Newton’s Second Law for an object in linear
motion: 𝐹 = 𝑀𝑎.

𝐼
𝑇 = 2𝜋√ (Nave, 2012) [1]
𝑀𝑔𝐷

I = ∫ 𝑟 2 𝑑𝑀 (Kaldon, 2003) [2]

This moment of inertia for a mass that is distributed continuously over a body is expressed in [2] as the integral or sum of
every infinitesimal point mass within the object, 𝑑𝑀, multiplied by the square of its separation, 𝑟, from its axis of rotation.
However, 𝐼 and 𝐷 are both constants dependent on one another; the independent variable 𝐷 could not be changed solely without
𝐼 varying. Considering the expression for 𝐼, if the rotational axis is changed such that its distance, separation from every point
mass is increased, 𝐼 should increase as well. Therefore, if the rotational axis of the meter rule were to be changed from its
geometric center of mass, where the range separation of each point mass is least from the rotational axis (see Figure 2.2.1), to
the end of the meter rule, where the range of separation of each point mass is greater (see Figure 2.2.2), 𝐼 should increase.

Figure 2.2.1: For a rotational axis at the geometric center of Figure 2.2.2: If the rotational axis were to be shifted to the
the meter rule, the separation of each point mass should end of the meter rule there would be a greater separation,
least from the rotational axis should be least. 𝑟2 , of each point mass from the rotational axis.

This relationship in the change of 𝐼 for an object, if the axis of rotation parallel to one passing through the center of mass of
an object were to be shifted a distance 𝐷 is expressed as such in Figure 2.2.3. Here, 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 that is a constant, is the moment of
inertia about the center of mass. Substituting this for 𝐼 in [1] yields the equation for the period such that if 𝐷 were to be changed,
no other variable would vary.

1
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/

𝐼 = 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 + 𝑀𝐷2
𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 + 𝑀𝐷 2
𝑇 = 2𝜋√
𝑚𝑔𝐷
4𝜋 2
𝑇2 = ∙ (𝐼 + 𝑀𝐷2 ) [3]
𝑀𝑔𝐷 𝐶𝑂𝑀
Figure 2.2.3: Graphical depiction of the theorem.

Assuming the meter rule that would be used for this investigation is a rectangular plate, 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 , could be substituted for a
rectangular plate, [4], in terms of its length, 𝐴, and width, 𝐵.

𝑀 ∙ (𝐴2 + 𝐵2 )
𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 = (Richmond, 2015) [4]
12
4𝜋 2 𝑀(𝐴2 + 𝐵2 )
𝑇2 = ∙[ + 𝑀𝐷 2 ]
𝑀𝑔𝐷 12
4𝜋 2 (𝐴2 + 𝐵2 )
𝑇2 = ∙[ + 𝐷]
𝑔 12𝐷 [5]

Equation [5] in this form suggests that the period squared, 𝑇 2 , for the physical pendulum is directly proportional to the sum
of the distance, 𝐷, it’s pivoted away from its center of mass and the moment of inertia of the rectangular plate at its center of
mass, divided by its mass. This is based on the assumptions that the moment of inertia of the meter rule is equivalent to that of
a plate and air resistance and frictional force have a negligible impact on the period.

3 Hypothesis

Given that the assumptions aforementioned are valid, graphing the quantities that yield a direct proportionality on the Y
and X axis respectively for distances above the center of mass, a straight-line graph through the origin should be drawn within
each of its errors. Alternatively, since T 2 should be the same for similar distances pivoted below the center of mass, a reflection
of the previous graph should also be obtained, producing an absolute value function (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Depiction of the hypothesized result.

Furthermore, the absolute value of both gradients for distances above and below the meter rule’s center of mass should be
equivalent to each other and 4𝜋 2 ∙ 𝑔−1 .

4 Experimental Design
4.1 Variables
2
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
Independent Variable: The independent variable would be the varying distances the meter ruler would be
pivoted away from its geometric center. The pivot points were made by drilling holes
along a drawn line that goes through the center of the ruler (see Figure 4.1.1), at distances
46cm, 42cm, 38cm, 44cm, 30cm and 26cm both above and below from the center of the
ruler’s 50cm mark that should be the geometric position of its center of mass (see Figure
4.1.1), assuming the meter rule’s mass is uniformly distributed (Hall, 2015). These
distances were measured, verified again using another meter ruler, extended from the
center of the 50cm mark to the center of the drilled hole. Furthermore, the drill bit used
to drill the holes was used as the pivot to ensure the distance from the center of mass the
pendulum oscillates is not increased slightly as a consequence of a smaller, loose fit.

Figure 4.1.1: Pivot points are to be made along the Figure 4.1.2: Meter rule pivoted at an
drawn line along the center of the ruler. The arbitrary distance such that the line
center of the 50ccm mark should be its geometric through the center of the ruler rests at the
center of mass. 90° mark of the protractor.

Dependent Variable: The dependent variable would be the period of one oscillation by the meter ruler that is
pivoted a distance away from its center. This would be obtained by placing a photogate
below the meter ruler and measuring the time it takes for it to complete oscillation or
when the photogate switches state from being blocked to unblocked twice till its first
blocked again (Vernier.com, n.d.). To ensure the reliability of the results, 10 such repeats
would be taken.
Controlled Variables:
Initial Angle of the Swing The initial angle of the swing would be controlled ensuring the center of the meter ruler
is displaced and released from the same small angle of 5 degrees each time. This would
be ensured by attaching a protractor to the point of suspension of the meter rule on the
retort stand, and aligning it such that the drawn line that goes through the center of the
pivoted meter ruler, rests at the 90-degree mark on the protractor (see Figure 4.1.2). The
line drawn through the center of the rule would then be displaced 5° which would be
measured using the protractor attached.

Position of Center of Assuming the mass of the meter rule is uniformly distributed, its geometric center of mass
Mass on the Meter Rule should be conserved and not shifted by drilling holes symmetrically along the drawn line
that goes through the center of the meter ruler. Therefore, holes were drilled at distances
46cm, 42cm, 38cm, 44cm, 30cm and 26cm both above and below the center of the ruler’s
50cm marks to ensure symmetry.

Length and Width of the The same meter ruler was used throughout the experiment whose length and width was
Ruler verified by measuring it utilizing another meter rule and Vernier caliper respectively, at
5 random positions along it. Their average width and length were taken to ensure the
validity of the assumption regarding the uniform length and width of the meter rule. This
should ensure the moment of inertia of the meter rule, that is assumed to be equivalent
to a rectangular plate, remains constant.

4.2 Apparatus

3
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
1 Protractor ±0.5° 1 15cm Ruler ±5×10−4 𝑚
1 Vernier Photogate −6
±1×10 𝑠 1 Drill Bit
2 Meter Rulers −4
±5×10 𝑚 1 Drill
1 Vernier Caliper ±2.5×10−5 𝑚 1 Retort Stand

4.3 Procedure
1. First, Using the Vernier caliper and other meter rule, take 5 measurements of the meter rule’s depth, at random
positions along the ruler, and length respectively.
2. Using a 15cm ruler, measure the width of a meter ruler and mark its center at both ends. Then using another meter
ruler, draw a line along the center of the meter ruler that joins both marks (see Figure 4.1.1).
3. At distances, 46cm, 42cm, 38cm, 44cm, 30cm, 26cm and 0cm both above and below the ruler’s 50cm mark, draw a line
across the ruler’s width.
4. Then, at each intersection of the drawn lines, excluding the one at the meter rule’s 50cm mark, drill holes utilizing a drill
bit.
5. Measure and verify that the distances from the central, undrilled intersection point to the center of the drilled holes are
46cm, 42cm, 38cm, 44cm, 30cm and 26cm above and below it respectively.
6. Clamp the drill bit to the retort stand and place either hole that is 46cm away from the meter rule’s center through the
clamped drill bit.
7. Then, attach the protractor on the drill bit, and align it such that such that the drawn line that goes through the center
of the pivoted meter ruler, rests at the 90-degree mark on the protractor (see Figure 4.1.2).
8. Place, a photogate that is connected to the data logger below the pivoted meter ruler. Ensure that the meter ruler is low
enough such that is the state of the photogate is blocked and the data logger is in a mode, ‘Pendulum’.
9. Displace the meter ruler by an angle of 5 degrees with reference to the drawn line along its center. Then, start data
collection on the data logger and let the meter rule to oscillate freely.
10. Record the period for the first 10 oscillations of the meter rule. A single oscillation would have occurred when the
photogate switches state from being blocked to unblocked twice till it’s first blocked again.
11. Repeat steps 5 to 10 for the 11 other drilled holes.

4.4 Safety Considerations

The use of the drill invites several concerns regarding safety. Therefore, whilst drilling holes into the meter rule, the use of
safety goggles and thick gloves was considered. This ensured any wooden material does not fall into the eye and that an injury
as a result wooden splinters or hot temperatures was avoided. Prior to drilling, the meter rule was secured firmly with clamps
to mitigate any accident as a result of its slipping and long clothing such as ties that may get entangled with the drill was taken
off. Furthermore, the drill was unplugged whilst not in use and the drilling was conducted a distance away from surrounding
people.

5 Raw Data
5.1 Quantitative Observations
5.1.1 Raw Data Table to Determine the Average Values of A and B

Measured Lengths of A (Width) and B (Length)

Trial A (m) B (m)
±0.000025 ±0.0005
1 0.02670 0.999
2 0.02675 0.999
3 0.02700 1.000
4 0.02685 0.998
5 0.02685 1.000

5.1.2 Raw Data Table Displaying the Period for a Distance Away from the Ruler’s Center of
Mass

4
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
Period (T) of the Meter Ruler Pivoted a Distance Away From it Centre of Mass (D)
D (m) T (s)
±0.0005 ±0.000001
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Trial 9 Trial 10
0.460 1.612229 1.612449 1.613166 1.613845 1.613410 1.611128 1.613252 1.613709 1.613597 1.613744
0.420 1.577239 1.577044 1.576322 1.575424 1.574071 1.573291 1.571644 1.577319 1.575850 1.577541
0.380 1.559229 1.560052 1.560163 1.561087 1.560912 1.561957 1.559912 1.560891 1.561084 1.560797
0.340 1.534268 1.534636 1.532641 1.531826 1.530509 1.528610 1.526366 1.524344 1.521616 1.517736
0.300 1.521629 1.522739 1.517375 1.513243 1.506666 1.515665 1.516432 1.511321 1.507372 1.499169
0.260 1.526027 1.528336 1.528365 1.523310 1.523426 1.521938 1.521199 1.522275 1.517409 1.524041
-0.260 1.497864 1.513420 1.508436 1.499114 1.498607 1.491676 1.508255 1.503622 1.514136 1.501430
-0.300 1.526418 1.523375 1.523676 1.524068 1.520430 1.526338 1.528319 1.524111 1.529267 1.520089
-0.340 1.531071 1.527468 1.526313 1.536455 1.536623 1.534605 1.533377 1.531921 1.530601 1.527972
-0.380 1.551624 1.550589 1.549361 1.551254 1.554931 1.554133 1.550423 1.549107 1.550504 1.553119
-0.420 1.567861 1.567163 1.569725 1.569244 1.567421 1.568365 1.564389 1.566840 1.565252 1.562468
-0.460 1.607977 1.607191 1.605903 1.603554 1.599546 1.600723 1.604047 1.608097 1.605447 1.605460

5.2 Qualitative Observations

1. For distances 34cm, 30cm and 26cm both above and below the meter rule’s center of mass, the initial amplitude of 5°
decreased significantly, within 5 oscillations such that the photogate continually remained in a blocked state, preventing
a period measurement to be taken. Therefore, for these distances the first 3 oscillations were taken and repeated such
that 10 periods were obtained.
2. Due to a loss of equipment, during experimentation the meter rule had to be pivoted on a smoother, but slightly larger
thin metal rod than the drill bit used to drill the holes for distances, 46cm, 42cm, 38cm, 34cm, 30cm and 26cm below
the meter rule’s center of mass.
3. For certain trials, the meter rule rocked sideways after which in some occasions did not oscillate perpendicular to the
pivot and the placed photogate.

6 Processed Data
6.1 Data Processing
6.1.1 Avg. Value of 𝑨 (𝑨𝑨𝒗𝒈. )
5
1
𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. = ∙ ∑ 𝐴𝑛
5
𝑛=1
𝐴𝑀𝑎𝑥. − 𝐴𝑀𝑖𝑛.
∆𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. = + 2.5×10−5 𝑚
2
Sample Calculations:
0.02670 + 0.02675 + 0.02700 + 0.02685 + 0.02685
𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. = 𝑚
5
= 0.02683𝑚
0.02700 − 0.02670
∆𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. = 𝑚
2
−4
= 1.500×10 𝑚
Here, the precision of the Vernier Caliper, 2.5×10−5 𝑚, was not added as its insignificant in comparison to 𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. by a degree of
10−3 .
6.1.2 Avg. Value of 𝑩 (𝑩𝑨𝒗𝒈. )
5
1
𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔. = ∙ ∑ 𝐵𝑛
5
𝑛=1
𝐵𝑀𝑎𝑥. − 𝐵𝑀𝑖𝑛.
∆𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔. =
2
Sample Calculations:
0.999 + 0.999 + 1.00 + 0.998 + 1.00
𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔. = 𝑚
5
5
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
= 0.999𝑚
1.00 − 0.998
∆𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔. = 𝑚
2
−3
= 1.00×10 𝑚
Again, the precision of the meter rule, 5×10 𝑚, was not added as its insignificant by a degree of 10−3 in comparison to the
−4

value of 𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔.
6.1.3 Determining the Avg. Period Squared (𝑻𝑨𝒗𝒈. 𝟐 )

10 2
2 1
𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. = [ ∙ ∑ 𝑇𝑛 ]
10
n=1
𝑇𝑀𝑎𝑥. − 𝑇𝑀𝑖𝑛.
∆𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2 =2∙[ ] ∙ 𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2
2 ∙ 𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔.

Sample Calculations of TAvg. 2 for a Distance of 0.460m Away from the Center of Mass:
𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2
1.612229s + 1.612449s + 1.613166s + 1.613845s + 1.613410s + 1.611128s + 1.613252s + 1.613709s + 1.613597s + 1.613744s
=[ ]
10
2
= 2.601940s
1.613854s − 1.611128s
∆𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2 = 2 ∙ [ ] ∙ 2.601940s 2
2 ∙ 1.613053s
= 4.397183×10−3 s 2
𝑨𝟐 +𝑩𝟐
6.1.4 Determining [ + 𝑫]
𝟏𝟐𝑫
𝐴2 + 𝐵2 𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2 + 𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2
[ + 𝐷] = +𝐷
12𝐷 12𝐷
𝐴2 + 𝐵2 ∆𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. ∆𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔. 0.0005𝑚 ∙ 12 𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2 + 𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2
∆[ + 𝐷] = [2 ∙ +2∙ + ]∙[ ] + 5×10−4 𝑚
12𝐷 𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. 𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔. 12 ∙ 𝐷 12𝐷
Sample Calculations for a Distance of 0.460m Away from the Center of Mass:
𝐴2 + 𝐵2 (0.02683𝑚)2 + (0.999𝑚)2
[ + 𝐷] = + 0.460𝑚
12𝐷 12 ∙ 0.460𝑚
= 0.641𝑚
2 2
𝐴 +𝐵 1.500×10−4 𝑚 1.00×10−3 𝑚 0.0005𝑚 ∙ 12 (0.02683𝑚)2 + (0.999𝑚)2
∆[ + 𝐷] = [2 ∙ +2∙ + ]∙[ ] + 5×10−4 𝑚
12𝐷 0.02683𝑚 0.999𝑚 12 ∙ 0.460𝑚 12 ∙ 0.460𝑚
= 0.003𝑚
6.2 Processed Quantitative Observations
A2 +B2
[ + D] Against TAvg. 2
12D
A2 +B2
[ + D] (m) TAvg. 2 (s2 )
12D
0.641 ±0.003 2.601940 ±4.397183×10−3
0.618 ±0.003 2.482435 ±9.291163×10−3
0.599 ±0.004 2.435499 ±4.257340×10−3
0.585 ±0.004 2.335564 ±2.582751×10−2
0.578 ±0.005 2.289657 ±3.566521×10−2
0.580 ±0.005 2.321456 ±1.669292×10−2
-0.580 ±0.005 2.260981 ±2.516775×10−2
-0.578 ±0.005 2.324433 ±1.399286×10−2
-0.585 ±0.004 2.345923 ±1.579121×10−2
-0.599 ±0.004 2.407166 ±9.035962×10−3
-0.618 ±0.003 2.455090 ±1.113708×10−2
-0.641 ±0.003 2.575365 ±1.372260×10−2

6
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
7 Data Analysis
7.1 Graphical Presentation and Justification of Anomaly
The processed data table was graphed; however, for clarity 𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2 for distances above and below the meter rule’s center of
mass were graphed onto separate graphs respectively. This enables a clear trend to be seen within 𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2 that varies little, by a
maximum of 0.314384, that is less than 1.

Graph Displaying the Linearized Relationship Between the Centre of Mass

and the Period of a Physical Pendulum
2.65

2.60
Max: y = 5.17x - 0.690
2.55 y = 4.03x
R² = 0.9797
2.50
Min: y = 3.57x + 0.295
T^2 (s^2)

2.45

2.40

2.35

2.30

2.25

2.20
0.570 0.580 0.590 0.600 0.610 0.620 0.630 0.640 0.650
[((A^2+B^2)/12D)+D (m)

Figure 7.1.1: Period of the physical pendulum for distances above the center of mass of the meter rule.

Graph Displaying the Linearized Relationship Between the Centre of Mass

and the Period of a Physical Pendulum
2.65

2.60

2.55

2.50
T^2 (s^2)

2.45
Max: y = -5.22x - 0.735
y = -3.99x 2.40
R² = 0.9225
2.35
Min: y = -3.55x + 0.267
2.30

2.25

2.20
-0.650 -0.640 -0.630 -0.620 -0.610 -0.600 -0.590 -0.580 -0.570
[((A^2+B^2)/12D)+D (m)
Figure 7.1.2: Period of the physical pendulum for distances below the center of mass of the meter ruler.
Here, a line of best fit through the origin cannot be drawn through the error bars of the anomaly.

7
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
For distance above the center of mass of the meter rule, a line of best fit through the origin could be drawn within the 𝑋 and
𝑌 error bars of the collected data, suggesting a direct proportionality with a regression of 0.96. However, this was not possible
for distances below the meter rule’s center of mass; a line of best fit through the origin cannot be drawn through the error bars
of 𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2 for 26cm below the center of mass of the meter rule that deviates from the trend. Furthermore, its 𝑇𝐴𝑣𝑔. 2 value is lower
than for a distance of 26cm by 6.6485×10−2 𝑠 2 . Although apparently small, this difference is significant given the number of
trials obtained for it, 10, and the precision of the period measurement, ±1×10−6 𝑠. Furthermore, its high 𝑌 error bars that is the
second highest from the collected data, ±2.516775×10−2 𝑠 2 , is typical of an anomalous result.

Graph Displaying the Linearized Relationship Between the Centre of Mass

and the Period of a Physical Pendulum
2.65

2.60

2.55

2.50

T^2 (s^2)
2.45
Min: y = -3.01x + 0.267
y = -4.01x 2.40
R² = 0.9828
Max: y = -5.29x - 0.735 2.35

2.30

2.25

2.20
-0.650 -0.640 -0.630 -0.620 -0.610 -0.600 -0.590 -0.580 -0.570
[((A^2+B^2)/12D)+D (m)
Figure 7.1.3: Period of the pendulum for distances below the center of mass of the meter ruler with the
omitted anomaly. Here, a line of best fit through the origin can be drawn for all data.
With the omitted anomaly, a line of best fit can then be drawn through the origin and within all the error bars that is
consistent with the hypothesized direct proportionality. A higher regression of 0.98 than previously 0.92 was obtained which
could be further corroborating evidence for the identified result being an anomaly, qualifying its omission.

Hence, the anomalous result was omitted. Since the absolute values of both gradients (𝐺1 for distance above and 𝐺2 for
distances below with the omitted anomaly) should be the same, their absolute average was obtained, 𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔. , with its error
propagated with the maximum and minimum possible gradients formed. This average gradient would be used as a reference
point for the percentage error of the experiment; the deviation from the experimental gradient from the hypothesized gradient.
This would enable a conclusion to be made as to whether the hypothesis should be accepted.

7.2 Experimental Error Calculations

7.2.1 Determining 𝑮𝑨𝒗𝒈.
𝐺1 + |𝐺2 |
𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔. =
2
𝐺1.𝑀𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺1.𝑀𝑖𝑛 𝐺2.𝑀𝑎𝑥 − 𝐺2.𝑀𝑖𝑛 1
∆𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔. = [ +| |] ∙
2 2 2
Calculations:
4.03𝑚𝑠 −2 + |−4.01𝑚𝑠 −2 |
𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔. =
2
= 4.02𝑚𝑠 −2
5.17𝑚𝑠 −2 − 3.57𝑚𝑠 −2 (−3.01𝑚𝑠 −2 ) − (−5.29𝑚𝑠 −2 ) 1
∆𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔. = [ +| |] ∙
2 2 2
8
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
= 0.970𝑚𝑠 −2

7.2.2 Determining the Random Error of 𝑮𝑨𝒗𝒈. (𝜹𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒎 )

∆𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔.
𝛿𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑚 = ×100
𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔.
Calculations:
0.970𝑚𝑠 −2
𝛿𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑚 = ×100
4.02𝑚𝑠 −2
= 24%

7.2.3 Determining the Percentage Error of 𝑮𝑨𝒗𝒈. (𝜹% )

1 4𝜋 2
𝛿% = | ∙[ − 𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔. ] ×100|
𝐺𝐴𝑣𝑔. 𝑔
Calculations:
1 4𝜋 2
𝛿% = | ∙ [ − 4.02𝑚𝑠 −2 ] ×100|
4.02𝑚𝑠 −2 𝑔
= 0.64%

8 Conclusion

The average absolute value of the experimentally obtained gradient was 4.02ms −2 ± 0.970ms −2, having a random error of
24%. The percentage error an indicator of the accuracy of this experimentally obtained gradient, 0.64%, being within its random
error of 24% and less than 1% away from the hypothesized gradient, allows the hypothesis to be accepted. Moreover, the
hypothesis is further validated by the direct proportionality obtained with high regressions 0.96 and 0.98 that is greater than
0.95 when the identified anomaly was omitted. However, the random error of 24% being greater than the percentage error of
0.64%, suggests that random errors were the main contributors to the error of the experiment.

9 Evaluation
9.1 Strengths of the Investigation
The direct proportionality obtained for both graphs, distances above and below the meter rule’s center of mass, is reflective
of the negligible presence of systematic errors in the experiment, after the justified anomalies were omitted. This validated the
assumption regarding the position of the meter rule’s center of mass being at its geometric center and the methodology for not
causing a significant deviation in its position. If the center of mass had deviated, the absolute value graph (see Figure 3.1) or the
position of its origin would have shifted along the 𝑋- axis, resulting in a positive and negative 𝑌-intercept for the line of best fit
for either graph. Since, this was not the case as a direct proportionality had been obtained, it could be asserted that this
assumption was valid and the methodology conserves its position.
Although random errors, 24%,were the main contributors to the error of the experiment, it being just less than 25% for a
school based experiment is low. This extent is further evident through the 𝑌 and 𝑋 error bars, not exceeding ± 3.566521×10−2 s 2
and ± 0.005m. The low deviation, random error, an indicator of the reproducibility or precision of the measurements made is
attributed to the use of a programmed photogate in measuring the period of the meter rule. This mitigates any source of human
errors if the period were to be measured in the traditional way where one would time 20 oscillations to obtain the average
period of 1 oscillation. Alternatively, this could be attributed to the number of trials taken, 10, and an increase in this should not
discernably reduce the random error of the experiment.

4𝜋 2 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 4𝜋 2 2
𝑇2 ∙ 𝐷 = ∙ + ∙𝐷 [6]
𝑔 𝑀 𝑔

Despite the drilled holes on the meter rule, it was assumed that its moment of inertia about its center of mass is still
equivalent to that of a metal plate. Therefore, to test this assumption TAvg. 2 ∙ 𝐷 was graphed against 𝐷 for both above and below
the meter rule’s center of mass. The 𝑌-intercept of both graphs should yield a value proportional to 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 of the meter rule,
divided by its mass (see Figure 9.1.1 and 9.9.2). This linearized equation to be graphed, [6], was obtained by rearranging, [3]. If
the experimental 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 of the meter rule, divided by its mass corresponds closely to 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 of a rectangular plate, [4], divided by
9
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
its mass the assumption could be argued as valid and accurate. For distances, above the meter rule’s center of mass the
experimental value of 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 divided by its mass was 4.5% away from the assumed value that was calculated using 𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑔. and 𝐵𝐴𝑣𝑔.
(see Table 9.1.3). Alternatively, for distance below the discrepancy was 0.89% (see Table 9.1.3). Both these percentage deviations
being less than 5% away from the experimental value, renders the assumption to be valid for this investigation.

(T^2)D Against D^2 For Distances Above the Meter Rule's Center of Mass

1.25

1.15
y = 4.13x + 0.319
R² = 0.9993
1.05
(T^2)D (ms^2)

0.95

0.85

0.75

0.65

0.55
0.040 0.090 0.140 0.190 0.240
D^2 (m^2)
Figure 9.1.1: The maximum and minimum gradients were not drawn since only the Y intercept for the
line of best fit is necessary to evaluate the assumption.

(T^2)D Against D^2 For Distances Below the Meter Rule's Center of Mass
-0.6
0.040 0.090 0.140 0.190 0.240
-0.7

-0.8
y = -3.97x - 0.338
R² = 0.9993
-0.9
(T^2)D (ms^2)

-1

-1.1

-1.2

-1.3
D^2 (m^2)
Figure 9.1.2: The anomaly for a distance 26cm below the meter rule’s center of mass was omitted. Here,
the error bars are too small to visualize the anomalous result.
𝑰𝑪𝑶𝑴 𝑰𝑪𝑶𝑴
Percentage Variation (𝜹𝑰𝑪𝑶𝑴𝑨 ) in Experimental Percentage Variation (𝜹𝑰𝑪𝑶𝑴𝑩 ) in Experimental
𝒎 𝒎
Values from Assumed Values for Distances Above the Values from Assumed Values for Distances Below the
Meter Rule’s Center of Mass: Meter Rule’s Center of Mass:
10
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
𝑔 (𝐴 + 𝐵2 )
2
12 𝑔 (𝐴2 + 𝐵2 ) 12
𝛿𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀𝐴 = | 2 ∙ 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 − |∙[ 2 ] ×100 𝛿𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀𝐵 = | ∙ 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 − |∙[ 2 ] ×100
4𝜋 12 𝐴 + 𝐵2 4𝜋 2 12 𝐴 + 𝐵2
Calculation: Calculation:
2 2
𝑔 1.500×10−4 + 0.9992 𝑔 1.500×10−4 + 0.9992
𝛿𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀𝐴 = | 2 ∙ 0.319𝑚2 − ∙ 𝑚2 | 𝛿𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀𝐵 = | 2 ∙ 0.319𝑚2 − ∙ 𝑚2 |
4𝜋 12 4𝜋 12
12 12
∙[ 𝑚−2 ] ×100 ∙[ 𝑚−2 ] ×100
1.500×10 −4 2 + 0.9992
2
1.500×10−4 + 0.9992
= 4.5% = 0.89%

Table 9.1.3: Calculations displaying the difference between the experimental value of 𝐼𝐶𝑂𝑀 divided by the meter rule’s mass and the assumed
value.

9.2 Limitations and Improvements

The deviating result obtained for distances below the center of mass of the ruler, was justified as an anomaly on the basis of
a limited range of the independent variable, 6. Therefore, to justify and omit this result on a strong basis so as to reliably reflect
the random or percentage error of the experiment on which a strong, conclusion could be made, there should have been a greater
range for the distances on the meter rule where the period measurement should be taken. A possible range is 46cm, 43cm, 40cm,
37cm, 34cm, 31cm, 28cm and 25cm both above and below the center of mass.

Figure 9.1.1: If the approach of the meter rule were perpendicular to Figure 9.2.2: If the angle of approach were to vary, the angular
the photogate, the angular it would have to travel to block it would distance the meter rule would have to travel to block the photogate
be least. would be greater and vary. Thus, period measurements would vary.

The meter rule was observed to wobbled sideways after being released which may have contributed to the random error of
the experiment. This sideways wobbling motion varies the angle at which the meter rule approaches the photogate. Hence, the
photogate would reach the final blocked stage that determines the end of one oscillation later, by varying amounts, as the meter
rule would have to travel a greater distance to block the photogate if it were approaching it angled (see Figure 9.1.2) than
perpendicular (see Figure 9.1.1). The discrepancy between these period measurements when perpendicular or angled during
its wobbling motion should contribute to the random error and is significant given the high precision of the photogate,
±1×10−6 𝑠. Therefore, to mitigate this behavior the meter rule could have been pivoted between two large, secured washers
that are sufficiently close to each other. This ensures oscillations are perpendicular to the pivot.
It is still unclear as to how the low anomaly, for a distance of 26cm below the meter rule’s center of mass, may have been
brought about. Typically, the factor explored above could systematically increase period measurements rather than reduce
period measurements to bring about the anomaly. Furthermore, its random error, ±2.516775×10−2 𝑠 2 , not being the highest
and looking back at the raw data, suggests that there wasn’t any data that may have significantly reduced the average. Since how
the anomaly may have been brought about is inconclusive, it would be best to repeat the measurements taken for this distance
of 26cm below the meter rule’s center of mass.
The amplitude was qualitatively observed to have deteriorated significantly that is likely to be the consequence of frictional
force opposing its motion, invalidating this assumption. This could be attributed to the slightly larger metal rod used as the pivot
after a loss of equipment whose tight fit may have accentuated the role of frictional force. Though the period is independent of
the amplitude (Burley et al., 1997), this significant reduction of the meter rule’s amplitude to within a few oscillations disallowed
its period to be measured due to the continual blocking of the photogate. Therefore, to mitigate this behavior and the role of
friction, the drilled holes and the pivot could have been greased.

11
 All texts belong to owners.
Taken from https://internalassessments.wordpress.com/
10 Extensions

The investigation established effect of varying distances of the pivot from the center of mass of rectangular plate on the
period of its oscillation. Upon further research, it was found that there exists a minimum period for a certain distance the
rectangular plate is pivoted from its center of mass. Therefore, factors such as the rectangular plate’s length, width and depth
on the effect of this minimum period could be investigated given more time. This could possibly aid in determining or shortlisting
the length of pendulum required for a certain measurement of time. Alternatively, the investigation could have possible
extended by comparing the periods obtained for different regularly shaped objects or on different axis of rotations.

11 Bibliography

Burley, I., Carrington, M., Kobes, R. and Kunstatter, G. (1997). The Simple Pendulum. [online] Theory.uwinnipeg.ca.
Available at: http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/shm/node5.html [Accessed 8 Apr. 2017].

Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). The Simple Pendulum. [online] Farside.ph.utexas.edu. Available at:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node140.html [Accessed 9 Apr. 2017].

Grieve, D. (2001) Compound Pendulum. [online] Available at:

http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/mech226/compoundpend.htm [Accessed: 26 February 2017].

Hall, N. (2015). Center of Gravity. [online] Grc.nasa.gov. Available at: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-

12/airplane/cg.html [Accessed 12 Apr. 2017].

Kaldon, P. (2003). Moment of Inertia (Rotational Mass). [online] Homepages.wmich.edu. Available at:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~kaldon/classes/ph205-11-moment-of-inertia.GIF [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017].

McFatridge, J. (2003). Rotational Motion. [online] Www2.hawaii.edu. Available at:

https://www2.hawaii.edu/~jmcfatri/labs/rotmotion.html [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017].

Nave, R. (2012). Physical Pendulum. [online] Hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu. Available at: http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pendp.html [Accessed 11 Apr. 2017].

Vernier.com. (n.d.). Photogate User Manual. [online] Available at: https://www.vernier.com/manuals/vpg-btd/ [Accessed
12 Apr. 2017].

12