Good. Keep it up!!!

Analysis.

Raw Data Table

Table 1. time taken for pendulum to complete 10 oscillations 

check decimal places

Data Processing

Statement on Choice of Uncertainties

The least count of the ruler is 1mm = 0.001m. since ruler is an analogue measuring instrument,
we have to divide the least count by 2 to get its uncertainty, which is

0.001
2
= 0.0005𝑚.

Stopwatch used to measure time is a digital device. Therefore the least count is its uncertainty,
which is 0.01s.

Overview

The result we obtained, t is only time for 10 oscillations. To get the value for one oscillation,
each t should be divided by 10 to get T for every results.

Then average T of each l can be obtained by adding all T of the row and dividing it with 5.

The uncertainty for T, which is ∆T can be found by the half of the difference between the 

maximum value of T, Tmax and the minimum value T, Tmin for each row, which can be shown in 
the following equation: 

𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛
∆𝑇 =  
1 

2
Page
 𝑙
Rather than plotting the graph of 𝑇 = 2𝜋 √   instantly, we knew that this graph will not be 
𝑔

linear. Therefore the both side of the equation was squared to get new form of equation, 

𝑙
𝑇 2 = 4𝜋 2 , 
𝑔

4𝜋 2
𝑇2 = 𝑙 
𝑔

in the form of the linear equation 𝑦 = 𝑚𝑥 + 𝑐, where T 2 is y­axis and l is x­axis, g is acceleration 

due to gravity. A straight line should be formed when T 2 is plotted against l, with a y­intercept c, 
which should be zero as shown in the equation. 

Since T2 is obtained by raising the power of T by 2, the uncertainty of T 2, ∆T2 can be derived 
from this equation: 

∆𝑇 2 ∆𝑇
2
=2  
𝑇 𝑇

∆𝑇
Therefore,       ∆𝑇 2 = 2 × 𝑇
× 𝑇 2 = 2 × ∆𝑇 × 𝑇 

The uncertainty of l remains same, which is half of 0.001m = 0.0005m,                                      
since there is no change in coefficient or power of  l. 

4𝜋2
Then a gradient of the graph, m, in the form     can be used to obtain the value of g. 
𝑔

Sample Calculation – all sample calculations are done for l = 0.50m. 

Period for 1 oscillation,  
 
𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 + 𝑇5 1.19 + 1.27 + 1.23 + 1.26 + 1.26
𝑇= = ≈ 1.24𝑠 (3 𝑠. 𝑓. ) 
5 5
 
𝑇 −𝑇 1.27−1.19
Therefore, uncertainty of T, ∆T = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = = ±0.04𝑠 
2 2
 
Considering that  l =0.50m, 
∆l = ± 0.0005m ≈ ±0.001m ( 3 s. f. )  
𝑇 2 = 1.242 = 1.54 ( 3 𝑠. 𝑓. ) 
2 
Page

∆𝑇 2 = 2 × 𝑇 × ∆𝑇 = 2 × 1.24 × 0.04 = 0.0992 ≈ 0.1 ( 1 𝑑. 𝑝. )

Data Presentation

Table 2. period for 1 oscillation of the pendulum and its uncertainty 

Table 3. value of T2 against the length of the pendulum, l and its uncertainty 
 

 
 
 
The value of T2 when l = 0.5, seems to be outranged, so data of the first column is omitted in 
the following graph of T2 against l :
3 
Page
Graph 1. T2 against the length of the pendulum,  l and its uncertainties (first column omitted) 
 
 

 
 

4 
Page
From the graph of T2 against l, we can deduce the value of acceleration due to gravity, g by
equating:
4𝜋 2
𝑔=  
𝑚

Where m is the gradient of the line.

Therefore the acceleration due to the gravity is,

4𝜋 2 4𝜋 2
𝑔= = = 9.869604 ≈ 9.87 (3 𝑠. 𝑓. ) 
𝑚 4.000 units?

To get uncertainty for g, we have to find each value of gmax and gmin.
They can be obtained from dividing with minimum and maximum gradient respectively.
Therefore we get values for gmax and gmin,

gmax :
4𝜋2
𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ≈ 11.69384 ≈ 11.7 ( 3 𝑠. 𝑓. )
3.376

gmin :
4𝜋2
𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛 = = 8.51929 ≈ 8.52 (3 𝑠. 𝑓. )
4.634

𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝑔𝑚𝑖𝑛
So, the uncertainty of g = ∆g = ,
2

11.7 − 8.52
∆g = = 1.59
2
 
Therefore percentage uncertainty of g, %∆g, is:

Δ𝑔 1.59
× 100% = × 100% = 16.10942 ≈ 16.1% ( 3 𝑠. 𝑓. )
𝑔 9.87

 
The theoretical value for g, gthe is mentioned at https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?gn,
as 9.81ms­2.We can compare it with our data, g exp which is 9.87ms­2 to obtain  
percentage deviation:
|𝑔𝑡ℎ𝑒 − 𝑔𝑒𝑥𝑝 | |9.81 − 9.87|
× 100% = × 100% = 0.61162 ≈ 0.61% (3 𝑠. 𝑓. ) 
𝑔𝑡ℎ𝑒 9.81
 
 
 
Conclusion
5 
Page
Theoretically, there should be a direct proportional relationship between T 2 and l, 
4𝜋2
which is shown in the equation 𝑇 2 = 𝑔
𝑙. T2 represents y­axis and l represents  
4𝜋2
x­axis. Gradient of the graph should be also show the value which   𝑚   is equal to 
the theoretical g value, 9.81. In this case 4.024. So my graph should have been 
shown the straight line with the gradient of 4.024 which passes through the 
origin. Moreover, y­intercept should be zero, as there is no other variable or 
constant that is added or subtracted.  
 
However my graph did not show the expected ideal value. Even though my graph 
was a straight line, its gradient was exactly 4, which is little smaller than 4.024 so 
it gave g value which was slightly larger than the theoretical value. Its y­intercept, 
which should not exist, existed however. The negative y­intercept of the best­fit 
line of the plotted graph suggested that my result had overall shifted downwards. 
This might have been caused by several random errors, such as human reaction 
time of the measurer of t, faulty adjustment of the length of the pendulum, or the 
slight difference of the dropping angle of the pendulum.  
 
My maximum gradient and minimum gradient was little bit awkward with the 
result when  
l = 0.50m, and the gradient of the best­fit line was much less with it. As aresult, 
those results were omitted when plotting the final graph, and it showed much 
better and smoother max. min. gradients. It also affected the gradient of best­fit 
line, so it is well done to omit the outranged data. 
 
The uncertainty of g was 1.59ms­2. This value is quite big, because it can be either 
1.59 more or less than the value I obtained. Also, it gave the percentage 
uncertainty of 16.1% which is huge. This meant my result had a lot of systematic 
errors. To minimize these errors, apparatus should be taken more carefully and 
precisely when having the next project. The percentage deviation, 0.61% reflected 
that my derived g value was not that deviated from the theoretical value of g. 
however, to even more reduce this percentage deviation, there should be more 
accurate way to obtain the gradient of the final graph, for example using better 
calibrated measuring instruments. 
6 
Page