Flora Mitchell

A2 Advancing Physics Investigation

Motion of a Variable Mass Oscillator
Aims

My aim for the investigative coursework was to examine the motion of a variable mass oscillator,
analyse experimental results and compare them to the theoretical models found in ‘The motion of a
leaking oscillator–a study for the physics class’1

Methodology

The practical part of my coursework took place over a week of obtaining results. It took a while to
get started collecting data and I had a few ‘false starts’ with data that was shown to be unusable but
in the end I did collect enough data to analyse.

To collect my results I set up a stand with four springs hanging off and attached, using string, my
container. I had a tray underneath to collect water and a camera facing to record the motion. I
would pour water into my container (plugging the base hole with
bluetak), start the camera and remove the bluetak. I would stop
the camera when the water had all gone and I would analyse the
data using Tracker, OpenSourcePhysics video analysis software
and particularly their AutoTrack feature. I did three runs using a
cylinder with varying initial displacement.
Clamp stand

4 springs

G-clamp
Cylinder
Coloured water

1
Rodrigues, Hilario; Panza, Nelson; Portes, Dirceu Jr.; Soares, Alexandre (2014). “The motion of a leaking
oscillator–a study for the physics class”. Physics Education 49 (557)

1
 Flora Mitchell

Figure 1 – Experimental Setup

The video appears horizontal as that made it easier to analyse with

Figure 2 – Using Tracker

screens that are longer than they are tall but actual event was as Fig 1 shows – vertical.

Risk Assessment

The main risk associated with this experiment is water spillage. The water drains from the cylinder
and could spill on the floor making a trip hazard. I avoided this by ensuring there was always a tray
to catch the water which was emptied regularly, lest it overflow, and wiping up any major spillages
as they occurred. It was particularly important to clean up spillages as another risk when using water
is it spilling onto computers and either damaging them or worse causing a shock hazard. Therefore
as well as cleaning spillages I also kept the computers away from the experiment.

Also as shown in Fig. 1 in order to give the cylinder space to oscillate without hitting the table the
clamp stand which supported it had to be on the edge of the table leaning at a precarious angle.
There was a risk it could fall and damage the equipment or hit someone. I used a G-clamp to secure
it to the table to minimise this risk.

Mass Investigation

The first aspect I investigated was mass. The paper1 detailed an equation for mass as a function of
time as
𝑔 2
𝑚𝑤 (𝑡) = 𝑚𝑤 (0)(1 − 𝑓𝑡√ )
2ℎ0

2
 Flora Mitchell

𝑎
Where 𝑚𝑤 (𝑘𝑔) is the mass of water at time 𝑡 (s), 𝑚𝑤 (0) is the initial mass of water (kg), 𝑓 = 𝐴 and
is the ratio between hole area 𝑎 and cylinder area 𝐴, 𝑡 is time (s), 𝑔 is acceleration due to gravity ≈
9.81 𝑚𝑠 −2 and ℎ0 is the initial height of the column of water (m).

This shows a quadratic relationship between mass and time which I was interested to test.
I did this by holding the cylinder still with 250 cm3 of water above a tray which was on top of an
electrical balance. I had my finger over the hole which I would release for 2 seconds, allowing the
water to run into the tray before stopping the flow and noting the mass in the tray from which I
could calculate the mass remaining in the cylinder.

I obtained this table of results

time /s mass in tray /g mass in cylinder /g mass in cylinder /kg

0.00 0.00 250.00 0.250
2.00 46.50 203.50 0.204
4.00 83.06 166.94 0.167
6.00 114.96 135.04 0.135
8.00 143.29 106.71 0.107
10.00 166.11 83.89 0.084
12.00 190.49 59.51 0.060
14.00 212.92 37.08 0.037
16.00 227.02 22.98 0.023
18.00 238.80 11.20 0.011
20.00 246.09 3.91 0.004
22.00 247.38 2.62 0.003

Table 1 – results of the investigation into the mass function

From
0.3
which I
Experimental M(t)
plotted
0.25
the
graph
mass in cylinder /kg

0.2
above,
y = 0.0005x2 - 0.0213x + 0.2472 which
0.15 R² = 0.9993 shows
that it is
0.1 a

0.05

0
0 5 10 time /s 15 20 25

Graph 1-the experimental mass function

3
Flora Mitchell

quadratic relationship. I decided to test this further by creating results using the theoretical equation
for the mass function and comparing the two.

I therefore used these parameters

Table 2 – parameters for the theoretical mass model

Initial mass m(0) /m 0.25

Cylinder diameter /m 0.046
Cylinder area A /m2 0.00166
Hole diameter /m 0.004
Hole area a /m2 0.0000126
F a/A 0.00756
Initial height h0 /m 0.15
Acceleration due to gravity g /ms-1 9.81
Which, when put into the mass equation, gave me these results.

Table 3 – Theoretical mass model results

time /s Theoretical mass in cylinder /kg

0.00 0.250
2.00 0.207
4.00 0.171
6.00 0.137
8.00 0.107
10.00 0.081
12.00 0.058
14.00 0.039
16.00 0.024
18.00 0.012
20.00 0.005
22.00 0.001

I wanted to see how similar these two functions were and whether, if uncertainties were taken into
account, the experimental data falls within the range of the theoretical model.Plotting the two set of
results together showed just how similar they truly are (experimental results in blue, theoretical
model in red).The uncertainties were tricky to decide. While the uncertainty due to the resolution of
the instruments is ±0.00005 kg for the electrical balance and ±0.5 s for the watch, I decided to use
the measuring cylinder uncertainty for the mass rather than that of the balance. The measuring
cylinder measures to 2 cm3, therefore 0.002 kg so the uncertainty I used ±0.002 kg.

4
 Flora Mitchell

0.3
Comparison of mass functions with uncertainty
0.25
Mass in cylinder /kg

y = 0.0005x2 - 0.0213x + 0.2472

R² = 0.9993
0.2

Experimental
0.15
Theoretical
0.1

0.05

0
-2 3 8 time /s 13 18 23 28
Graph 2 – comparison of experimental and theoretical mass functions showing uncertainty bars. Experimental in blue,
theoretical in red.

This shows that the theoretical function for mass is consistent with my experimental results and
thus, can be used in my theoretical-experimental comparisons for motion also.

Motion Investigation

Having shown that the mass equation was acceptable to use I set about
investigating motion in order to compare my results to the model. From
Fig. 3 it can be seen that the displacement of the cylinder can be split into
𝐷 3 parts so that

𝐷 = 𝐿+𝑥+𝐴

Figure 3 – Diagram of the
displacement of the cylinder
Where 𝐷 is the total distances from support to the bottom of the cylinder,
𝐿 is the unextended length of the spring, 𝑥 is the extension due to mass
and 𝐴 is height of the volume of water.
𝐹
As 𝑥 = 𝑘 (Hooke’s Law where 𝐹 is the force in N and 𝑘 is the spring
constant in Nm-1) then

𝑀𝑔
𝑥=
𝑘

Where 𝑀 is the mass (kg) and 𝑔 is the acceleration due to gravity (≈9.81 ms-2). As the mass is varies I
put the expression as

𝑀(𝑡)𝑔
𝑥=
𝑘

5
Flora Mitchell

Where 𝑀(𝑡) is the mass function.

Finding 𝐴 involved the definition of simple harmonic motion. In SHM the equation is

𝐴 = 𝐴0 sin 𝜔𝑡

Where 𝐴0 is the amplitude (or original displacement), 𝜔 is the angular frequency (rads s-1) and 𝑡 is
time (s). This can be re-written as

2𝜋
𝐴 = 𝐴0 sin 𝑡
𝑇

𝑚
Where 𝑇 is time period (s). As 𝑇 = 2𝜋√ where 𝑚 is the mass (kg) and 𝑘 is the spring constant in
𝑘
-1
Nm this can be rearranged to

𝑘
𝐴 = 𝐴0 sin √ 𝑡
𝑚

Substituting in the mass function for the variable mass and adding in an exponential part for the
decreasing amplitude where 𝜆 is the decay constant.

𝑘
𝐴 = 𝐴0 sin √ 𝑡 𝑒 −𝜆𝑡
𝑀(𝑡)

Therefore making my final motion equation

𝑀(𝑡)𝑔 𝑘
𝐷 =𝐿+ + 𝐴0 sin √ 𝑡 𝑒 −𝜆𝑡
𝑘 𝑀(𝑡)

I could use this as my theoretical model to compare my results to. To collect my results I did 3 runs
using the cylinder and using 3 different initial displacements – run 1 with no initial displacement, run
2 with a little and run 3 with a lot. As it was difficult to measure the exact numerical value of
displacement while displacing the cylinder I used these labels and worked out the numerical value
using Tracker. I ‘tracked’ each video twice – once at the bottom of the cylinder and once at the
waterline - I used food colouring in the water to make this easier – and the data exported to Excel. I
later realised that I had forgotten to set the frame rate on Tracker to 240 fps. It assumed 30 fps so it
was necessary to correct all times by dividing by 8 and calling them some variation on ‘corr t’ for
corrected time.

6
 Flora Mitchell

The following graphs show my results. The waterline is shown in blue and the bottle in red.

Graph 3 – motion with no initial displacement

0.45
0.68
Motion for Run 13
0.40
0.58

0.35
0.48

0.30
/m

0.38
Displacement
Displacement /m

0.25
0.28 Cylinder
0.20 Cylinder
0.18 Waterline
Waterline
0.15
0.08
0.10
-0.02
0.00 5.00 10.00 Time /s 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
0.05
-0.12
0.00
Graph 5 – motion with lots of initial displacement
0.00 5.00 10.00 Time /s 15.00 20.00 25.00
The jumps and gaps in the line are most likely due to
errors and changes made in Tracker.
0.60
Motion for Run 2
0.50

0.40
Displacement /m

0.30
Cylinder

0.20
Waterline

0.10

0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 Time /s 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

-0.10

Graph 4 – motion with a little initial displacement

Using this data I set to work analysing it. I used the

Waterline data rather than Cylinder data as that was what the model would refer to.

First I found the displacements to find the ‘a little’ and ‘lots’ of displacement runs by calculating
‘displacement at 0’ minus ‘lowest displacement before release’. These are summarised below:

7
 Flora Mitchell

Run Title Displacement /m

1 No displacement 0.0000
2 ‘A little’ displacement 0.0220
3 ‘Lots of’ displacement 0.0357
Table 4 – table showing the actual initial displacement values

Before doing the larger comparison there were a few smaller investigations to do first.

Time Period

I analysed how the time period of oscillation changed as the water ran out. I therefore estimated on
each run the midpoint time for when the acceleration is positive. Had the oscillations made a perfect
sine curve this would have entailed using the times when acceleration is 0, as it was not the process
of choosing the midpoint was done by estimation and inexact. To plot against this I also found the
midpoint time when acceleration was decelerating by a similar method. I ended up plotting
therefore a graph of (Mid_t, (A-B))
Displacement /m

A
A-B
Mid_t
B

The following tables and graphs show these results for all 3 runs. Mid_t
Figure 4 – showing how time period data was collected and graphed

Table 5 – Time period data for no initial

displacement

Time /s Period /s Mid_t /s

8.76 1.52 9.59
10.28 1.31 11.01
11.59 1.36 12.24
12.95 1.31 13.60
14.26 1.25 14.95
15.52 1.25 16.14
16.77 1.23 17.35
18.00 1.06 18.54
19.06 1.13 19.67

8
 Flora Mitchell

Table 7 – Time period data for lots of 20.19 1.11 20.77 Table 6 – Time period data for a little
displacement 21.29 1.02 21.79 initial displacement
22.31 1.02 22.81
23.34 1.02 23.82 Time /s Period /s Mid_t /s
Time /s Period /s Mid_t /s 24.36 0.94 24.80 6.01 1.46 6.72
3.67 1.19 4.15 25.30 0.92 25.73 7.47 1.46 8.13
4.86 1.38 5.59 26.21 0.90 26.67 8.93 1.36 9.55
6.24 1.40 7.01 27.11 0.96 27.57 10.28 1.25 10.93
7.63 1.31 8.26 28.07 0.81 28.51 11.53 1.21 12.18
8.95 1.25 9.55 28.88 0.88 29.36 12.74 1.33 13.47
10.20 1.19 10.76 29.76 0.86 30.22 14.08 1.15 14.68
11.39 1.13 11.93 30.61 0.94 31.01 15.22 1.08 15.77
12.51 1.08 13.12 31.55 0.79 31.99 16.31 1.04 16.93
13.60 1.15 14.14 32.34 17.35 0.98 17.83
14.74 0.94 15.18 18.33 1.06 18.89
15.68 1.02 16.22 19.39 0.98 19.92
16.70 0.98 17.25 20.37 1.02 20.92
17.68 0.98 18.25 21.40 0.96 21.90
18.66 1.02 19.16 22.36 0.92 22.79
19.69 0.86 20.08 23.27 0.92 23.77
20.54 0.94 20.98 24.19 0.92 24.65
21.48 0.81 21.88 25.11 0.90 25.59
22.29 26.01 0.90 26.46
26.90

9
 Flora Mitchell

1.6
Time Periods
1.4
y = -0.028x + 1.6809
R² = 0.9282
1.2

1
Time Period /s

y = -0.0285x + 1.4871
R² = 0.8229
0.8
y = -0.0299x + 1.6211
R² = 0.91
0.6

0.4 Run 1
Run 2
0.2 Run 3

0
0 5 10 15 Mid_t /s 20 25 30 35
Graph 6 – Time period data for all Runs, table 5 to 7.

One of the most fitting trendlines on these data sets is shown to be a linear relationship between
time period against time. This is expected as

𝑀(𝑡)
𝑇 = 2𝜋 √
𝑘

Where 𝑇is time period (s); 𝑚 is mass (kg); and 𝑘 is spring constant (Nm-1). Therefore

𝑇 2 ∝ 𝑀(𝑡)

And as the mass investigation shows

𝑀(𝑡) ∝ 𝑡 2

So 𝑇 ∝ 𝑡

I then decided to further analyse of this relationship by doing a direct investigation into time period
against mass which, for my data should follow the relationship:

𝑀(𝑡)
𝑇 = 2𝜋√ 𝑘

With 𝑀(𝑡) is the mass at a certain time. I decided to plot time period against the square root of
mass as from this I should obtain a linear graph. I envisioned using my experimental trendline to
estimate the mass at a certain time but this equation was not feasible for longer times: it worked
well up until 22s but afterwards modelled the mass to increase again so I scrapped that idea. Instead
I decided to use my Tracker data for bottom of the cylinder. The distance between the water level

10
 Flora Mitchell

and the bottom of the cylinder would tell me the volume of water at that moment, from which I
could calculate the water mass which was added to the mass of the cylinder to give the total mass.
This method was less precise than my previous idea as Tracker is very difficult to get exact however

it would definitely work for all times so I set to work. I used the mass at the Mid_t time to plot
against time period.

Period Mid_t Waterline Cylinder Water Volume Water Total √Total

/s /s displacement displacement height of water mass mass mass/
/m /m /m /m3 /kg /kg kg
1.19 4.15 0.28 0.08 0.20 0.00029 0.29 0.39 0.62
1.38 5.59 0.30 0.12 0.18 0.00026 0.26 0.36 0.60
1.40 7.01 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.00022 0.22 0.32 0.56
1.31 8.26 0.31 0.20 0.11 0.00017 0.17 0.26 0.51
1.25 9.55 0.33 0.21 0.11 0.00016 0.16 0.26 0.51
1.19 10.76 0.34 0.23 0.11 0.00016 0.16 0.25 0.50
1.13 11.93 0.35 0.26 0.09 0.00013 0.13 0.23 0.47
1.08 13.12 0.35 0.28 0.08 0.00011 0.11 0.21 0.46
1.15 14.14 0.36 0.30 0.06 0.00009 0.09 0.19 0.43
0.94 15.18 0.37 0.32 0.05 0.00007 0.07 0.16 0.41
1.02 16.22 0.38 0.34 0.04 0.00006 0.06 0.15 0.39
0.98 17.25 0.39 0.35 0.04 0.00005 0.05 0.15 0.39
0.98 18.25 0.39 0.36 0.03 0.00005 0.05 0.14 0.38
1.02 19.17 0.40 0.37 0.03 0.00004 0.04 0.13 0.37
0.86 20.08 0.41 0.38 0.02 0.00004 0.04 0.13 0.36
0.94 20.98 0.42 0.39 0.02 0.00003 0.03 0.13 0.36
0.81 21.88 0.40 0.39 0.01 0.00002 0.02 0.11 0.34

11
 Flora Mitchell

Table 8 – Table for the Time period and square root of mass data for no displacement

Period Mid_t Water Cylinder Water Volume Water Total √Total

/s /s displacement displacement height of water mass mass mass/kg
/m /m /m /m3 /kg /kg

1.52 9.59 0.33 0.11 0.22 0.00032 0.32 0.42 0.64

1.31 11.01 0.36 0.15 0.21 0.00030 0.30 0.40 0.63
1.36 12.24 0.39 0.19 0.20 0.00029 0.29 0.39 0.63
1.31 13.60 0.40 0.22 0.19 0.00027 0.27 0.37 0.61
1.25 14.95 0.40 0.23 0.17 0.00025 0.25 0.35 0.59
1.25 16.14 0.43 0.26 0.17 0.00025 0.25 0.35 0.59
1.23 17.35 0.44 0.31 0.13 0.00018 0.18 0.28 0.53
1.06 18.54 0.44 0.33 0.11 0.00016 0.16 0.26 0.51
1.13 19.67 0.45 0.37 0.09 0.00012 0.12 0.22 0.47
1.11 20.77 0.46 0.38 0.08 0.00011 0.11 0.21 0.46
1.02 21.79 0.47 0.39 0.08 0.00011 0.11 0.21 0.46
1.02 22.81 0.48 0.40 0.07 0.00011 0.11 0.21 0.45
1.02 23.82 0.48 0.41 0.07 0.00010 0.10 0.19 0.44
0.94 24.80 0.48 0.44 0.04 0.00005 0.05 0.15 0.39
0.92 25.73 0.49 0.45 0.04 0.00005 0.05 0.15 0.39
0.90 26.67 0.49 0.46 0.03 0.00005 0.05 0.14 0.38
0.96 27.57 0.50 0.46 0.03 0.00005 0.05 0.15 0.38
0.81 28.51 0.49 0.46 0.03 0.00005 0.05 0.14 0.38
0.88 29.36 0.50 0.49 0.02 0.00002 0.02 0.12 0.35
0.86 30.22 0.50 0.49 0.02 0.00002 0.02 0.12 0.35
0.94 31.01 0.52 0.50 0.02 0.00003 0.03 0.13 0.36
0.79 31.99 0.49 0.49 0.01 0.00001 0.01 0.11 0.33
Table 9 – Data for Time period against root mass for a little displacement

12
 Flora Mitchell

Period Mid_t Waterline Cylinder Water Volume Water Total √Total

/s /s displacement displacement height of water mass mass mass/kg
/m /m /m /m3 /kg /kg

1.46 6.72 0.38 0.07 0.31 0.00045 0.45 0.77 0.88

1.46 8.13 0.41 0.12 0.29 0.00042 0.42 0.75 0.86
1.36 9.55 0.41 0.15 0.26 0.00038 0.38 0.71 0.84
1.25 10.93 0.41 0.16 0.25 0.00036 0.36 0.70 0.83
1.21 12.18 0.43 0.20 0.23 0.00033 0.33 0.67 0.82
1.33 13.47 0.42 0.20 0.21 0.00031 0.31 0.65 0.81
1.15 14.68 0.43 0.23 0.20 0.00029 0.29 0.63 0.80
1.08 15.77 0.48 0.29 0.19 0.00028 0.28 0.62 0.79
1.04 16.93 0.46 0.29 0.18 0.00026 0.26 0.60 0.78
0.98 17.83 0.48 0.41 0.07 0.0001 0.10 0.41 0.64
1.06 18.89 0.48 0.42 0.06 0.00008 0.08 0.39 0.62
0.98 19.92 0.49 0.43 0.06 0.00009 0.09 0.40 0.63
1.02 20.92 0.50 0.45 0.05 0.00007 0.07 0.36 0.60
0.96 21.90 0.50 0.45 0.05 0.00007 0.07 0.36 0.60
0.92 22.79 0.54 0.49 0.05 0.00007 0.07 0.36 0.60
0.92 23.77 0.52 0.47 0.04 0.00006 0.06 0.34 0.59
0.92 24.65 0.54 0.50 0.04 0.00005 0.05 0.33 0.57
0.90 25.59 0.52 0.49 0.03 0.00005 0.05 0.32 0.56
0.90 26.46 0.54 0.50 0.04 0.00006 0.06 0.35 0.59

Table 10 – Data for Time period against root mass for lots of displacement

13
 Flora Mitchell

1.6
Time period against square root mass for all runs
1.4 y = 2.4045x
R² = 0.6673
1.2
Time Period /s

1
y = 2.2661x
0.8 R² = 0.868
y = 1.5555x
0.6 R² = 0.8273
Run 1

0.4 Run 2
Run 3
0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Square root total mass /kg

Graph 7 – Graph data for Tables 8 - 10

All three data show that my results follow the equation and show that Time period is directly
proportional to root mass which should back up the validity of my results as they do follow this
relationship.

Amplitude

Before starting on my larger motion investigation there was one more, smaller investigation to do on
the decay of amplitude in a variable mass oscillator. As in the equation it is necessary to have a value
for the decay constant 𝜆 I did this by looking at how the amplitude of the oscillations decayed with
time. These were calculated according to the following diagram:

2
Displacement /m

2-1
Cent_t

Cent_t

Figure 5 – showing how amplitude decay data was collected and graphed

14
 Flora Mitchell

I estimated to the best of my ability the peaks and troughs of each oscillation – in a normal sine
curve this would be where velocity = 0 but again, my results did not follow that exactly so I had to
estimate – and then estimate the central time (cent_t) of the oscillation which I chose to be the
midpoint time where acceleration was positive which allowed me to use data I had already collected
in my time period investigation: the column marked Time in tables 5, 6 and 7.

Table 11 – Data for amplitude decay for no displacement

Trough Amplitude
/m Peak /m /m Cent_t /s
0.2729 0.3162 0.0434 4.86
0.2892 0.3221 0.0328 6.24
0.2935 0.3199 0.0264 7.72
0.3044 0.3358 0.0314 8.95
0.3150 0.3481 0.0332 10.20
0.3307 0.3567 0.0260 11.39
0.3374 0.3637 0.0263 12.51
0.3470 0.3743 0.0272 13.60
0.3496 0.3742 0.0246 14.74
0.3557 0.3833 0.0275 15.68
0.3664 0.3897 0.0233 16.70
0.3724 0.3970 0.0246 17.68
0.3796 0.4025 0.0228 18.66
0.3855 0.4090 0.0235 19.69
0.3976 0.4193 0.0217 20.54
0.3807 0.4073 0.0266 21.48
0.3861 0.4111 0.0249 22.29

Graph 8 – Graph of amplitude decay for no displacement

0.05
Amplitude Decay for Run 1
0.05

0.04

0.04
Amplitude /m

0.03

0.03

0.02
y = 0.0384e-0.025x
0.02 R² = 0.6073

0.01

0.01

0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 Cent_t /s 15.00 20.00 25.00

15
 Flora Mitchell

Trough /m Peak /m Amplitude /m Cent_t /s

0.2990 0.3930 0.582 10.28
0.3167 0.4010 0.688 11.59
0.3284 0.4193 0.730 12.95
0.3423 0.4283 0.667 14.26
0.3566 0.4438 0.646 15.52
0.3742 0.4554 0.646 16.77
0.3860 0.4622 0.605 18.00
0.3971 0.4712 0.542 19.06
0.4049 0.4749 0.542 20.19
0.4125 0.4853 0.542 21.29
0.4229 0.4923 0.521 22.31
0.4314 0.4930 0.521 23.34
0.4348 0.4969 0.501 24.36
0.4395 0.5004 0.459 25.30
0.4421 0.5047 0.480 26.21
0.4502 0.5119 0.480 27.11
0.4553 0.5120 0.438 28.07
0.4588 0.5193 0.459 28.88
0.4665 0.5231 0.438 29.76
0.4702 0.5279 0.438 30.61
0.4739 0.5207 0.396 31.55
0.4703 0.5247 0.417 32.34
Table 12 – Data for amplitude decay for little displacement

0.80
Amplitude Decay for Run 2
0.70

0.60
Amplitude /m

0.50

0.40 y = 0.9067e-0.024x
R² = 0.8927
0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Cent_t /s

Graph 9 – Graph of amplitude decay for little displacement

Trough /m Peak /m Amplitude /m Cent_t /s

16
 Flora Mitchell

6.9862 7.8203 0.834 7.47

8.4877 9.2384 0.751 8.93
9.8849 10.5731 0.688 10.28
11.1987 11.9077 0.709 11.53
12.5125 13.1173 0.605 12.74
13.7012 14.3268 0.626 14.08
14.9107 15.5364 0.626 15.22
16.0786 16.5999 0.521 16.31
17.1004 17.5592 0.459 17.35
18.0597 18.6019 0.542 18.33
19.1233 19.6446 0.521 19.39
20.1451 20.6456 0.501 20.37
21.1253 21.6258 0.501 21.40
22.0846 22.5642 0.480 22.36
23.0439 23.5444 0.501 23.27
23.9823 24.4411 0.459 24.19
24.8999 25.3378 0.438 25.11
25.7966 26.2345 0.438 26.01
26.6725 27.1104 0.438 26.90
Table 13 – Data for amplitude decay for lots of displacement

All of these showed the exponential decay I would expect and provided decay constants to be used.
0.90

0.80 Amplitude Decay for Run 3

0.70
Amplitude /m

0.60

0.50 y = 0.9582e-0.031x
0.40 R² = 0.8877

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 Cent_t /s 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Graph 10 – Graph of amplitude decay for lots of displacement

It is interesting that there does not seem to be a pattern in the decay constant values. The decay
constant for a damped oscillator is dependent on air resistance which in turn is dictated by cross
sectional area. As the cross sectional area does not change the decay constant too should stay the
same and to an extent it does: the values have a mean of 0.027 with a standard deviation of only
0.003.

17
Flora Mitchell

Motion
With these smaller investigations done it was now time to do a larger investigation of the theoretical
model against my experimental results. In the paper the theoretical model was done by Euler’s
method of using small time increments and calculating displacement, velocity and acceleration from
there. I decided for the theoretical model to use a similar but simpler technique. Using incremental
time increases the mass would be calculated at each point using the equation,

𝑔 2
𝑚𝑤 (𝑡) = 𝑚𝑤 (0)(1 − 𝑓𝑡√ )
2ℎ0
then this mass would be used to calculate displacement using the equation.

𝑀(𝑡)𝑔 𝑘
𝐷=𝐿+ + 𝐴0 sin √ 𝑡 𝑒 −𝜔𝑡
𝑘 𝑀(𝑡)

I would then compare this model to my experimental results and see how far they differed.

I measured the mass of the cylinder, diameters of both hole and cylinder and original spring length
to use as parameters. The following tables and graphs show the parameters and results of
comparing the first 9 seconds of the experimental and theoretical results.

Run 1 2 3
original mass of water /kg m0 0.25
density of water /kg m-3  1000
Diameter of cylinder /m 0.043
Area of cylinder /m2 A 0.00145
original height of water /m h0 0.172
mass of measuring cylinder /kg mc 0.09772 Table 14 –
parameters for
acceleration due to gravity /ms-2 g 9.81 the theoretical
diameter of hole /m 0.005 models
area of hole /m2 a 1.96E-05
Initial displacement /m d 0 0.022 0.0357
original length of spring /m l0 0.215
spring constant /Nm-1 k 6.1125
decay constant  0.025 0.024 0.031

18
 Flora Mitchell

Graph 11 - Comparison for no displacement

0.6
0.60 Experimental Results and Theortical Model
0.5
Experimental Results
comparison forand
RunTheortical
2 Model
Displacement /m

0.4 0.50 comparison for Run 1

Displacement /m

0.3 0.40
Theory
0.2 Experiment
0.30

0.1
0.20
0
00.10 1 2 3 4 Time /s 5 6 7 8 9 10

Graph 12 - Comparison for a little displacement

0.00
0.7 0 1 2 3 Time /s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Experimental Results and Theortical Model
0.6
comparison for Run 3
0.5
Displacement /m

0.4

0.3

0.2 Theory
Experiment
0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 Time /s 5 6 7 8 9 10

Graph 13 - Comparison for lots of displacement

As the theoretical equation describes the distance from the support above the cylinder and the
experimental results are taken from the bottom of the cylinder, the theoretical results all have 1
subtracted from each point so to get the graph to go the same way.

For the first 9 seconds or so the model and results look quite similar and the model seems to have
worked reasonably well. There are some differences in amplitude for all but using a toggle system in
Excel

19
 Flora Mitchell

Figure 6 – Toggle system in Excel

The model’s
amplitude etc. can be modified so see if it better fits the experimental results. I have also added
uncertainty bars. The time uncertainty is very low: the motion was filmed at 240 fps and Tracked
every 5 frames making the time uncertainty about ±0.008s. The displacement is harder but I used
the calibration tape feature on Tracker to measure a few pixels across (about 1cm on the computer
screen) which came up as 0.01m so as I thought Tracker could well be out by a few pixels at any
given frame I made the uncertainty ±0.01m.

Graph 14 – Modified comparison for no displacement

0.40

0.35

0.30
Displacement /m

0.25

0.20
Theory
0.15 Experiment

0.10
Modified comparison for Run 1
y=0.25f(x)+0.23
0.05

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 Time /s 5 6 7 8 9 10

The theory and experiment for Run 1 will only properly match if the amplitude of the experiment is 0
however, editing the theory line from 𝑦 = 𝑓(𝑥) to 𝑦 = 0.25𝑓 (𝑥) + 0.23 allows them to rise at a
similar rate.

20
 Flora Mitchell

The main problem therefore is why the Run 1 cylinder oscillated at all even though, from the theory
it should not have done. There are a number of possible reasons for this but one of the most likely is
the cylinder was not released being jostled. Releasing the cylinder involved taking of the bluetak and
instead putting my finger over the hole before letting go. While I tried to keep the cylinder still
through this it is difficult to do so and therefore very likely the cylinder was jostled when released
and as such oscillated a little on the way up. As the uncertainty bars show this may also be errors on
Tracker, although such a consistent oscillation makes this unlikely.

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35
Displacement /m

0.3
Theory
0.25
Experiment
0.2

0.15 Modified comparison for Run 2

0.1 y=0.46f(1.07x+36)+20
0.05

0
0 1 2 3 Time /s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Graph 15 – Modified comparison for a little displacement Once again with some small alterations: halving the
amplitude, moving the graph up and left and
( )
making the theory graph 𝑦 = 0.46𝑓 1.07𝑥 + 36 + 20 the graphs rise at a similar rate. Also as
before the individual amplitudes of the oscillations are much too large. The reason may be the same
as before – jostling the cylinder as I let go – but also may be due to resonance. If the cylinder were
oscillating near to or at the natural frequency of the springs the amplitude would be much larger
than expected as this effect is not taken into account by my model.

21
 Flora Mitchell

Another problem with the model is the time period doesn’t decay as much as the experiment does.
This could be an error in collecting the decay data but that data dictated more the amplitude decay
rather than time period. As time period is dependant of mass or spring constant it could be one of
these. Mass would imply that the mass is released at a slower rate than the model predicts. My mass
investigation shows it cannot be due to the cylinder or ratio of areas so that would make it due to
the motion of the cylinder. Maybe the acceleration of the cylinder and so the force on the water is
not as large in actuality as thought. I had assumed that the force pushing the water down as the
cylinder moved up cancelled the force pushing the water up as the cylinder moved down so the
force remained, in total, constant but possibly this was not the case. Or maybe the cross-sectional
area of the cylinder caused a drag effect on the cylinder, effectively damping it, and reducing the
acceleration. Spring constant may also be causing this. I tested two springs from the same pack as
the four I used in the experiment, found the spring constant for both and used an average. There
was a discrepancy between the springs so may suggest that the springs I used had different spring
constants. Also I did a number of runs before the ones in which I took this data and many involved
large spring extensions: these may have made the springs deform and the spring constant to be
quite different for the ones I used. The uncertainty bars are far too small to account for these
differences.

0.7
Modified comparison for Run 3
0.6
y=0.6f(1.08x+37)+19
0.5
Displacement /m

0.4

0.3

0.2 Theory
Experiment
0.1

0
0 1 2 3 Time /s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Graph 16 – Modified comparison for lots of displacement

Just as before after a few changes to 𝑦 = 0.6𝑓 (1.08𝑥 + 37) + 19 the graphs will rise at the same
rate. Also as before both the individual amplitudes and the time period decay are quite different –
potentially for the reasons I discuss above. It is possibly interesting to note that the y-axis shrinking
coefficient (the A in y=Af(x)) is required to be less the larger the displacement, i.e. larger
displacements have the theory closer to the experiment. This may point towards the values for initial
displacement being larger than I calculated.

22
 Flora Mitchell

Limitations

The model also has limitations that have to be seen. While the model is reasonably good for the first
9 seconds or so, the difference between theory and experiment get more pronounced up to 20
seconds. These differences are something which would need further investigation and I am not
entirely sure why the effects become even more pronounced. It could be that all the reasons I’ve
mentioned above have a composite effect – changing the experiment a little more each time – or it
may be another reasons entirely. Possibly the accelerations do not cancel to a constant or the water
flow is very different when oscillating than it is when stationary so the mass equation isn’t quite
right.

0.45
0.40
0.35
Displacement /m

0.30
0.25
0.20
Extended modified comparison for Run 1
0.15
Theory
0.10
Experiment
0.05
0.00
0 5 10 Time /s 15 20

Graph17 – Graph 14 extended to 20s

0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
Theory
0.4
Displacement /m

0.35
Experiment
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Extended modified comparison for Run 2
0.05
0
0 5 10 Time /s 15 20 25 30

Graph 18 – Graph 15 extended to 20s

23
 Flora Mitchell

0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
Displacement /m

0.4
Theory
0.35
Experiment
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1 Extended modified comparison for Run 3
0.05
0
0 5 10 Time /s 15 20 25
Graph 19 – Graph 16 extended to 20s

Evaluation

Overall, the investigation has gone reasonably well. The experiment done was quite demanding in
terms of both practical skills and scientific understanding but I have managed to gain some
reasonable data which supports the models found in the paper and acts mainly as theory would
predict and so I would conclude an overall success.

There are many parts of the investigation that can be improved on. Due to time constraints, both in
taking the data owing to false starts and in analysis, I was not able to take any repeats of the runs
which would be important to verify my results. I have made some tentative conclusions about
relationships but to truly validate these many more results would be needed.

I would also improve my methods – one of the main things this investigation has taught me is the
importance of improving methodology ‘as you go’ – and during data analysis I can see it could be
improved further. The initial displacements of the cylinder was done completely by feel and though I
named them ‘little’ and ‘lots’ I had no idea what this meant until later. One of the ways to improve
the experiment (and make repeats easier) would be to somehow standardise the initial
displacement. One way would be to use a distance sensor of some type (either sonic or laser) on the
floor, attached to a computer. The cylinder could be displaced and the sensor could show in real
time the amount of displacement so it could be more easily controlled by the experimenter. Another
way to improve the experiment may be through use of Tracker. Owing to the vast amounts of data I
had it was unfeasible for me to Track manually: click a point on each frame I wanted to track. I
therefore used the Autotrack system which selected a portion to track and followed it automatically.

24
Flora Mitchell

I first came across this system doing this investigation so analysing the data was also my first time
using this system. Therefore there are ‘tricks’ to using the AutoTrack system which I learnt halfway
through analysing the data which would have made the analysis better. Therefore I would say I
would improve the investigation by doing the analysis now (being more learned than I was initially
about AutoTrack) or else by a different method entirely – this could again make use of a distance
sensor.

Conclusion

The main aim of this investigation was to compare experimental results to the model formed in the
paper by Rodrigues et al. Despite the need for tweaking in some parts the experimental results do
contain resemblance to the theoretical models found in the paper. The mass investigation in
particular went well and the model, despite being derived from a purely theoretical basis, was
matched almost exactly by my experimental results. The motion results too went reasonably well
and contained not only a visual resemblance to the theoretical model but when tweaked a little a
reasonably strong resemblance, although admittedly there seem to be further variables not
accounted for. I have also made some additional investigations into time period. These show, as
expected, linear relationships. Therefore I would conclude that my investigation was reasonably
successful in its primary aim and also in the secondary investigations.

25