HOOKE`S LAW INVESTIGATION YEAR 1

NAME: Nirantar Yakthumba

TEACHER PROMPT:
Aims:
• Find the relationship between the load on spring and its extension.
• Determine the spring constant

This task assesses criteria ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION.

Materials:
Universal stand, clamps, meter stick, spring, weights

Methodology:
1. Hang the spring from the universal stand. Measure its length
2. Hang a mass on the spring. Measure and record the final length of the spring.
Subtract original length from final length to find the extension
3. Increase the mass on the spring. Measure and record the final length of the
spring. Subtract original length from final length to find the extension. Record the
extension
4. Repeat the experiment for three more masses
5. Record information in a table

TOTAL ______
DC and P Raw data
Complete Records appropriate quantitative
2 and qualitative data.
Units and uncertainties where
relevant
Partial Some mistakes and omissions in
1 recording of data
Not at all No appropriate quantitative data
0 or raw data is incomprehensible
TOTAL ______
Conc/Ev Concluding
Complete States a conclusion with
2 justification.
Based on reasonable
interpretation of data
Partial States a conclusion
1 Based on reasonable
interpretation of data
Not at all No conclusion OR based on
0 unreasonable interpretation of
data
Processing raw data
Processes quantitative raw data
correctly
Processes quantitative raw data
with some mistakes or
omissions
No processing of quantitative
raw data OR major mistakes
made
Evaluating procedure(s)
Evaluates weaknesses and
limitations
Identifies some weaknesses
and limitations.
Evaluation weak or missing
Irrelevant weaknesses and
limitations identified
Presenting processed data
Presents processed data
appropriately.
Includes errors and uncertainties
where relevant
Presents processed data
appropriately, but with some
mistakes and/or omissions
Presents processed data
inappropriately or
incomprehensibly
Improving investigation
Suggests realistic improvements of
identified weaknesses and
limitations
Suggests only superficial
improvements
Unrealistic improvements
suggested
 2
Defining Relevant Variables:

𝑙! 𝑙!

Where:
𝐖 = 𝑚𝐠
W: The weight of the mass m of the hanging object M due to acceleration due to gravity g, where 𝐠 ≈
9.81𝑚𝑠 !! , the weight is given in N and W gives the magnitude of the weight.
m: The mass of the hanging object M in kg
𝑙! :  The original length of the spring S given in m, 𝑙! = 0.032𝑚
𝑙! : The length of the spring S after extension x, where 𝑥 = 𝑙! −   𝑙! given in m
 3
Propagation of Uncertainties:

The uncertainty in measuring lengths 𝑙!  and  𝑙!  is given as ∆𝑙! = ±0.001𝑚  as it is the least count of the
meter scale used to measure the lengths.

The uncertainty in the average extended length 𝑙!,! is given by the equation:

𝑙!"#! − 𝑙!"#!
∆𝑙!,!! =   ±
2

Where,
∆𝑙!,!! : The uncertainty in the average length 𝑙!,!! , where i corresponds to the set of data obtained for different
values of mass 𝑚! , summarized by the number 𝑁!  allocated to the order by which the masses are varied as
the independent variable of the experiment.
𝑙!"#! : The maximum value obtained for the extended length 𝑙! due to mass 𝑚! .
𝑙!"#! : The minimum value obtained for the extended length 𝑙! due to mass 𝑚! .

Similarly, the average extended length 𝑙!,! is given by the equation:

!
! ! !!
𝑙!,! = !
; i=1, N=3

The following is a table presenting the propagated uncertainties for 𝑙! due to varied masses 𝑚! and the
average extended length 𝑙!,! :

𝑁! 𝑚! /kg 𝑙!"#! − 𝑙!"#! ∆𝑙!,!! /m 𝑙!,! /m

2
1 0.100 0.094 − 0.084 ±0.005 0.089
2

2 0.200 0.144 − 0.140 ±0.002 0.142

2

3 0.300 0.207 − 0.204 ±0.002 0.205

2

4 0.400 0.264 − 0.261 ±0.002 0.263

2

5 0.500 0.324 − 0.322 ±0.001 0.323

2

6 0.600 0.386 − 0.384 ±0.001 0.385

2
 4
The table provides us the uncertainties propagated for the set of data obtained in the experiment and from it
we can pick an uncertainty by choosing the highest appearing uncertainty of ±0.005 m.

∴ The uncertainty chosen as the average extended length ∆𝑙!,! = ±0.005  𝑚

Now, the extension x is given by the equation

𝑥 = 𝑙!,! −   𝑙!

The uncertainty in extension x is given by the following equation:

∆𝑥 = ∆𝑙!,! + ∆𝑙! =   ± 0.005 + 0.001 = ±0.007 m

∴The uncertainty in the extension ∆𝑥 = ±0.007  𝑚

Compiling all the processed uncertainties and the raw data obtained from the experiment, the following table
presents the data that this investigation will work with:

𝑁! 𝑚! /kg W/N 𝑙!! /m 𝑙!! /m 𝑙!! /m (𝑙!,! ± 0.002)/m (𝑥 ± 0.007)/𝑚

1 0.100 0.98 0.089 0.094 0.084 0.089 0.057

2 0.200 1.96 0.140 0.143 0.144 0.142 0.110

3 0.300 2.94 0.207 0.204 0.204 0.205 0.173

4 0.400 3.92 0.261 0.264 0.264 0.263 0.231

5 0.500 4.91 0.322 0.324 0.324 0.323 0.291

6 0.600 5.89 0.386 0.385 0.384 0.385 0.353

The table above is represented as a graph in Graph 1 of load W versus extension x; load is given in Newtons
and extension is given in meters:
 5
Graph 1: Load against Extension: Analysis

9  

8  

7  

6  

5  

4  
W/N  

3  

2  

1  

0  
-­‐0.1   0   0.1   0.2   0.3   0.4   0.5  

-­‐1  

-­‐2  
x/m  
   

The graph of load versus extension clearly depicts a linear relationship between them, to verify this
relationship we can use logarithms to find the exponential relationship between load and extension. After
mathematical verification we will return to analyzing Graph 1 completely. We can approach mathematical
analysis of Graph 1 in the following way by using logarithms of load W and extension x and mathematically
and analytically deducing the exponential relationship between them:
 6
Graph 2: Logarithm of Load Against Logarithm of Extension: Analysis

𝑊 ∝ 𝑥!
𝑊 = 𝑘𝑥 !
log 𝑊 =  𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑘𝑥 !
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑘 + 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑥 ! ; 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑘 is a constant so let 𝑐 = 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑘
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊 = 𝑐 + 𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑥

𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊 = 𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑥 + 𝑐: Eq. 1

Comparing Eq. 1 to the first order equation of linearity:

𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑐

We can define Eq. 1 as a linear equation and identify analogous variables through which we can identify n
the exponential factor that relates x to W. Thus,
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊: 𝑦
𝑛: 𝑚
𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑥: 𝑥
𝑐: 𝑐
The logarithms of load and extension are represented in the table below:

𝑁! W/N 𝑙𝑜𝑔W 𝑥/m 𝑙𝑜𝑔x

1 0.98 -0.008 0.057 -1.244
2 1.96 0.292 0.110 -0.958
3 2.94 0.468 0.173 -0.761
4 3.92 0.593 0.231 -0.636
5 4.91 0.691 0.291 -0.536
6 5.89 0.776 0.353 -0.452

The data in the table in plotted in the following graph of the logarithm of W versus the logarithm of x:

According to Eq.1, the exponential relation n is given by the gradient of the line of best fit of the logarithm of
W versus the logarithm of x:
∆𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊
𝑛 = 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
∆𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑥

Choosing points to compute n, or the gradient:

𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑥 = −1.044, 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊 = −0.008; and 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑥 = −0.452, 𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊 = 0.776

∆𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊 = 0.776 + 0.008 = 0.784

∆𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑥 =   −0.452 + 1.044 = 0.592

So,
0.784
𝑛= = 1.32 ≈ 1
0.592
∴𝑛=1
 7
Thus, we have mathematically deduced that the exponential relation between load W and extension x is
linear; uncertainties were disregarded in this deduction as it was a matter of simple approximations that do
not require extensive mathematical analysis. We can now say mathematically that:

𝑊 ∝ 𝑥: Eq. 2

Graph 2, supporting the collected data and the information received from it is displayed below:

0.9  

0.8  

0.7  

0.6  

0.5  
logW  

0.4  

0.3  

0.2  

0.1  

0  
-­‐1.4   -­‐1.2   -­‐1   -­‐0.8   -­‐0.6   -­‐0.4   -­‐0.2   0  

-­‐0.1  
logx  

The deductions made through Eq. 1 and Graph 2 have mathematically shown that the suggested relationship
between load and extension is linear and proportional; Graph 1 is the simplest graphical representation of
load against extension. Through this deductive finding, we have formulated Eq. 2.
 8
Data Analysis of Graph 1 and Equation 2:

Since load and extension are directly proportional given by Eq. 2:

𝑊∝𝑥

They can be equated with a constant of proportionality:

Let the 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡  𝑜𝑓  𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑘, thus:

𝑊 = 𝑘𝑥: Eq. 3
Eq.3 gives us the direct mathematical relationship between load and extension. We know the values of both
the variables separately so the constant k allows to ‘complete’ the relationship between them. Comparing Eq.
3 to the first order equation of linearity:
𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑐
We can establish the mathematical analogies as the following since Eq. 3 is also a linear equation of the first
order:
𝑊: 𝑦
𝑘: 𝑚
𝑥: 𝑥
As we may have noticed from Graph 1, there is no y intercept; the line passes through the origin. Therefore
we may conclude with certainty that the y intercept 𝑐 = 0

The gradient of the line in Graph 1, comparing to the linear equation, gives us the constant of proportionality
k:

∆𝑊
𝑘 = 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
∆𝑥

Choosing points to compute the absolute constant 𝑘!"# , or the absolute gradient:

𝑊 = 5.89  𝑁, 𝑥 = 0.353  𝑚; and 𝑊 = 0.98  𝑁, 𝑥 = 0.057  𝑚

∆𝑊 = 5.89 − 0.98 = 4.91  𝑁

∆𝑥 = 0.353 − 0.057 = 0.296  𝑚

So,
4.91
𝑘!"# = = 16.587 … ≈ 16.6  𝑁𝑚!!  (3𝑠𝑓)
0.296

Analysis of units:

𝑊  [𝑁]
𝑘=
𝑥  [𝑚]

Weight W is given in Newtons N and x is given in meters m. We can thus say that the units of k are Newtons
per meter N𝑚!! . We will discuss what this could mean in Evaluation and Conclusion.

∴ 𝑘!"# = 16.6  𝑁𝑚!!

 9
Graph 3: Maximum and Minimum Gradient Lines of Load Against Extension: Analysis

We will now mathematically analyze the gradients of the graph given by considering the uncertainties in the
extension x. The Graph presented below: Graph 3, displays the gradient uncertainties in load against
extension. Two trend-lines distinguish the maximum gradient and the minimum gradient — maximum being
the largest value and minimum being the lowest.

9  

8  

7  

6  

5  

4  
W/N  

3  

2  

1  

0  
-­‐0.1   0   0.1   0.2   0.3   0.4   0.5  

-­‐1  

-­‐2  
x/m  
 10
They can each be computed by the same equation used to calculate the gradient of Graph 1:

∆𝑊!
𝑘! = 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 =
∆𝑥!

Where 𝑖 represents the set of data used for the calculation of  𝑘! , here: either maximum values or minimum.

Computing the maximum gradient by taking the points that are indicated as circular markings on Graph 3:

𝑊 = 0.98  𝑁, 𝑥 = 0.064  𝑚; and 𝑊 = 5.89  𝑁, 𝑥 = 0.346  𝑚

∆𝑊 = 5.89 − 0.98 = 4.91  𝑁

∆𝑥 = 0.346 − 0.064 = 0.282  𝑚

So,
4.91
𝑘!"# = = 17.411 … ≈ 17.4  𝑁𝑚!!  (3𝑠𝑓)
0.282

∴ 𝑘!"# = 17.4  𝑁𝑚!!

Computing the minimum gradient by taking the points that are indicated as cross markings on Graph 3:

𝑊 = 0.98  𝑁, 𝑥 = 0.050  𝑚; and 𝑊 = 5.89  𝑁, 𝑥 = 0.360  𝑚

∆𝑊 = 5.89 − 0.98 = 4.91  𝑁

∆𝑥 = 0.360 − 0.050 = 0.310  𝑚

So,
4.91
𝑘!"# = = 15.838 … ≈ 15.8  𝑁𝑚!!  (3𝑠𝑓)
0.310

∴ 𝑘!"# = 15.8  𝑁𝑚!!

So, we can compute the uncertainty in the absolute gradient or constant 𝑘!"# through the following equation:

𝑘!"# − 𝑘!"#
∆𝑘!"# =   ±
2

So,
17.4 − 15.8
∆𝑘!"# =   ± = ±1.6 ≈ ±2.0  𝑁𝑚!!
2

Thus, we obtain our absolute result for this investigation as:

𝑘!"# + ∆𝑘!"# = 16.6 ± 2.0  𝑁𝑚!!

∴ 𝑘 = 16.6   ± 2.0  𝑁𝑚!!

 11
We can observe from Graph 1 that the line of best fit goes through the origin. The said result suggests that
there is negligible systematic error in the experiment. This is further supported by the y intercepts of the
maximum and minimum gradients:

The y intercept of the maximum line 𝑐!"# ≈   −2  𝑁; the y intercept of the minimum line 𝑐!"# ≈ 2  𝑁.
Thus the average intercept 𝑐!"# can be found by:

𝑐!"# + 𝑐!"# −2 + 2
𝑐!"# = = =0
2 2

∴ 𝑐!"# = 0

Thus, the origin lies definitely within the range of the uncertainties in the gradient of the line in Graph 1 and
3. We can thus conclude our analysis saying that the data analysis suggests a proportional relationship
between load W and extension x.

The proportionality error between load W and extension x is given by the percentage uncertainty in 𝑘!"# :

∆𝑘!"# 2.0
= ×100% ≈ 12.0%
𝑘!"# 16.6
 12
Conclusion:

The initial results of the investigation suggested clearly through the absolute line of best fit in Graph 1 that
the most probably relationship between load W and extension x was linear and very likely proportional. The
analysis that followed through Graph 2 with the aid of Eq. 1, Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 deduced mathematically and
analytically that the thoroughly supports the original intuition of proportionality between load and extension
in the given domain of extension  (0.000  𝑚, 0.353  𝑚)   ± 0.007  𝑚  and range of load (0.98 N, 5.89 N). The
percentage uncertainty in the gradient or constant of proportionality 𝑘!"# is found to be 12%, the range
associated with this uncertainty however included the origin, furthermore: accurately as its average value,
supporting the claim of a proportional relationship between load and extension. Probably the biggest
weakness in this experiment was the random error in the data and the resulting scatter of data points outside
the line of best fit, however to a very minute extent. The data is suggestively and respectably accurate.

As the analysis and results point towards, if 𝑊 ∝ 𝑥, then the proportionality constant k in the equation
𝑊 = 𝑘𝑥, requires the units 𝑁𝑚!! . This suggests that the load applied on a spring is directly proportional to
the constant k. This constant, formally known as the spring constant, seems to suggest that it determines the
strength or stiffness of the spring as mathematically it suggests that materials with a higher spring constant
produce a smaller extension when the same force it applied to them. It seems to indicate how difficult it is to
stretch a material. Thus, the spring constant k is inversely proportional to extension x given a constant load or
force applied on the material F or W.

1
𝑘∝
𝑥

𝐹
𝑘=
𝑥

The Spring Constant k or strength of the elastic material, the spring S, used in this investigation has been
computed to be as 16.6  𝑁𝑚!! ± 2.0  𝑁𝑚!! . Simply we could that a force of ≈ 16.6  𝑁   ± 2.0  𝑁 is required
to create an extension of 1  𝑚 on the type of material used to make the spring S; not necessarily on the spring
itself.

Evaluation:
The controlled variables in the investigation were namely that the same spring was used so that there would
be no discrepancy in the surface area and the original length of the spring; we maintained that the spring and
hanging mass are stationary and not in harmonic motion. The consistency of the original length of the spring
is explicitly crucial to remain constant so that the analysis of the investigation is correct.
Weakness and Limitations
Accuracy has generally been faulty in the experiment
as the large percentage error in the gradient due to
(most significantly) random error and resultantly the
percentage error in proportionality seems to suggest.
One weakness in the experiment was the lack of
checking for uncertainty in mass, as it was readily
assumed in the investigation that there was no
uncertainty in the mass, which directly contributed to
the independent variable, the load. The uncertainty in
acceleration due to gravity was also not taken due to
account as even though it is a generalized constant, it
changes slightly due to position on the surface of the
earth due to the earth not being a perfect sphere. Not
taking into account all of these factors that could’ve
lead to a large random error was the greatest
weakness in this investigation.
Another source of possibly large random error is the
method used to measure the extended length of the
spring. A meter stick was kept ‘perpendicular’ to the
table while measuring the extended and original
lengths of the spring, which was also being held
‘perpendicularly’ and ‘parallel’ to the meter stick by
a universal stand. There are many sources of random
error here: fluctuations in the reference point due to
angular discrepancy of the meter stick compared to
the table and the universal stand can result largely in
random errors as there wasn’t any material to ensure
that the meter stick was being held perpendicular to
the table and parallel to the universal stand and
spring; the same could be said about the universal
stand, there was no clamp to place the stand
stationary while mass was being hung from the
spring. This left large space for human error to occur
due to imperfect observation.
The precision of the investigation was conducted to a
general 3 significant figures while it could have been
4; the precision in load suffers due to pre-determined
mass of only 3 significant figures. This leaves the
end results to only 3 significant figures so it
compensates the validity of the investigation.
13
Improvements
The obvious improvement to this limitation would be
to measure the masses and determine their average
uncertainty so that error bars in the independent or y-
axis could be placed to determine more accurate error
in the investigation. Similarly, the uncertainty in the
acceleration due to gravity should be either
propagated or researched through an online database
over what the precise and accurate value of the
acceleration due to gravity is where the experiment
was conducted. The analysis of the investigation
would be more valid if it were possible to have
included these possibly important random errors.
There needn’t be any significant improvement on
systematic errors as Graph 1 suggests that systematic
errors are most probably negligible, however to be
sure, materials should be calibrated or checked for
functionality prior to starting.
The most plausible improvement possibly granted by
the available materials here would be to calibrate the
system used for the experiment as carefully as
possible so as to reduce any angular error in
measurement by meter stick and position of the
universal stand. To reduce human error, the answer
would be to conduct more repetitions of the
experiment for the given intervals of the independent
variable and to add more intervals with smaller
discontinuity between each other to obtain more sets
of data for analytical propagation. The experiment
must be done skillfully so as to reduce error by
imperfect reading so investigators should maintain
perpendicular eye-level while reading the extended
lengths and the original length of the spring.
Investments should be made on clamps and better
positioned universal stands of good quality so as to
ensure that fallacies are avoided as much as possible
Higher precision could have been accessed to obtain
more precise data through the use of measuring
instruments with a higher degree of precision. The
precision of the load can be improved by weighing
the mass. Values with more precision in acceleration
due to gravity should be used to ensure accuracy.