Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final

Rough Copy 1)
Introduction:
Pendulums are freely swinging weights hanging from tension carrying mediums fixed at a
pivot. Although they modeled using simple harmonic motion to simplify calculations, real
world pendulums case in the real world. Certain quantities such as the period, time-constant,
and Q-factor are simplified or omitted from the model.
The first purpose of this lab is to better model the simple harmonic by adding a factor of
decay. The quantities used to describe this decay were calculated and estimated from data
collected from a variety of data and used to describe the properties of the pendulum. The
results were then used to find dependence between certain quantities and varify predicted
theories.
The conclusions found from this lab are as follows. The period is found to be mostly constant
within a certain range of initial angles of release. The decaying motion of a pendulum with a
fixed length was found to be best modeled with an exponentially decaying sinusoidal graph,
from which a Q-factor was calculated. This Q-factor, which determines the rate at which the
pendulum’s amplitude decays, was found to have an intrinsic dependence on the length of the
pendulum.

Section 1 (Theory):
The motion of the a pendulum undergoing simple harmonic motion is predicted to be:

t
Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 1
 t
θ = θ0 e− τ cos(2π
t
+ ϕ0 ) (1)
T
(Mazur, 2022)
Where:
t = time (s)
θ0 = initial angle (rad)
τ = time constant of decay (s)
T = period (s)
ϕ0 = phase shift (rad)
Q-factor calculations:
The Q factor of a pendulum is equivalent to the number of oscillations it takes for the
pendulum to reach e−π times its original amplitude. It can also be shown that the following
equation is true:

Q = Nn (2)

(Mazur, 2022)
Where:

N∈N
n = the number of oscillations it takes to reach e− N of the initial amplitude
π

Q = Q factor
Alternatively, it can be found using τ (time-constant of decay) and T (period):

τ
Q=π (3)
T
(Mazur, 2022)
Where:

Q = Q factor
τ = time constant of decay (s)
T = period (s)
Period calculations with respect to Length:

L
T = 2π
g
≈2 L

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 2

 Where:
(4)
T = period (s)
L = length of the pendulum (m)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2 )
Period-Amplitude Generalization:
The relationship between the period (T) and the angle of release (θ) can be described as
follows:

T = T0 + Bθ + Cθ2 (6)

(Amore et al., 2007)

Section 2 (Method):
The purpose of this lab is to study the simple harmonic motion of a pendulum. For this
purpose, a very thin, light-weight string, and a relatively much heavier fishing weight was
chosen. A pendulum with a single string will have the tendency for elliptical motion, which
will result in loss of energy. Therefore, in the design, two strings of equal length were
attached to 2 distinct points on a wooden support. The strings’ horizontal tension would
constrain the movement of the bob, resulting in a better model of simple harmonic motion.

Figure 1 (Front view of the pendulum): The Figure 2 (Side view of pendulum):
wooden bar supports the pendulum, and the The two-string design, the bob, and the wooden
protractor measures the angle of release. support bar are shown in this view.

A protractor and a second string are both taped directly above the pendulum bob. Using this
string, the angle of release of the bob can be measured.
A measuring tape was used to measure from the effective length of the pendulum from the
center of the bob to the point directly above on the wooden board. For the period vs angle of
release and position vs time dependencies, this effective height was set to 0.380 ± 0.0001m.

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 3

 For the period vs length and Q-factor vs length dependencies, the effective height was set
starting from 0.100 ± 0.001 m with increments of 0.02m, up to 0.400 ± 0.001cm. The data
from the 0.380m length pendulum was added to the data collected as well.

The bar is set with the pendulum hanging off the end of an elevated surface (1.0000
±0.0001 m), and the other end of the bar is held in place with a heavy counter-weight and
tape. Then a phone is set-up at the same height as the fulcrum (1.0000 ±0.0001 m) and
recorded at 30 fps (frames per second). For the period-amplitude dependence experiment, the
pendulum was released at angles starting from - 1.48 ± 0.02 rad to 1.48 ± 0.02 rad (-85 deg
to 85 deg) from the normal. The time it took for the pendulum to reach its greatest amplitude
after one full oscillation was used to measure the period. This is because the Q-factor (370 -
see section 3) of the pendulum is less than 1000, which means that using more than one
oscillation may give inaccurate results for the period measurement due to the dampening of
the pendulum. For the position vs time, period vs length, and Q-factor vs length
dependencies, the initial angle from which the pendulum was released from was 0.53 ±0.02
rad.

For all the experiments, the Tracker software was used to measure position and time, which
can automatically track position of the bob. A white poster was used to provide the highest
contrast between the dark-grey bob and the background. According the Tracker software
website, the time uncertainty measured is 0.02 seconds, while the position uncertainty is 0.02
rad.

Section 3 (Data Analysis):

Figure 3: Plot of the period of pendulum against different angles of release.
(Equation of best fit: T (θ) = 1.24 + 1.46 ∗ 10−3 θ + 4.77 ∗ 10−2 θ2 )

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 4

 In Figure 3, the range of values goes from 1.24 to 1.35. The residuals due to the quadratic fit
correlates with equation (6), where T0 is (1.236 ±0.003 (s)), B is (1.46 ∗ 10 −3 ±2.0∗ 10
−3
), C is (0.048 ±2.0∗ 10 −3 ). Since the uncertainty of B is larger than its value, it can be
said that B is experimentally zero, and the pendulum is symmetric.
If C ∗ θ2 is within the 0.03 uncertainty of the original period, the change in period with
regards to the angle is considered to be negligible.

C ∗ θ2 < 0.03
∣θ∣ < 0.03/C
∣θ∣ < 0.79

Therefore, for all θ in this range, the period of the pendulum will not depend on the angle of
release according to the experimental data and uncertainties.

Figure 4: Plot of the position of angle against the time elapsed from release of 0.534 rad.
−t
(Equation of best fit: θ(t) = 0.534e 146 cos(2π 1.23554
t
+ 10.996) )

In Figure 4, it is observed that the motion of the pendulum fits well with the damped
sinusoidal graph, which confirms the theoretical equation (1) in section 1. Therefore, the
pendulum is clearly not ideal as its amplitude decays with time.
Fitting the curve gives the values of initial amplitude (A = 0.534 ±0.001 (rad)), time decay
constant (τ = 146 ± 3 (s)), period (T = 1.23554 ± 3 ∗ 10 −5 (s)), and phase shift (10.996
±0.003 (rad)).
Since we have the values of time decay and period, the Q-factor can be calculated using
equation (3):
τ

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 5

 τ
Q=π
T
145 ± 3
=π
1.23554 ± 3 ∗ 10−5
= 370 ± 8

Figure 5: Plot of the position of angle against the time elapsed from release of 0.534 rad.
−t
(Equation of best fit: θ(t) = 0.534e 154 ) )

In Figure 5, it is observed that the amplitude of the motion can be used to calculate to the Q
factor using equation (2). Setting N=4, and A 0 is the original amplitude, the target
amplitude’s value should be:

A0 ∗ e− N
π

= (0.534 ± 0.001) ∗ 0.456

= 0.2435 ± 0.0004

Counting the number of oscillations until an amplitude 0.2435 shows that in 89 ± 4

oscillations (3 values of total distance 7 oscillations apart centred around 80 were found to be
within acceptable range of of the target amplitude considering its uncertainty and the first 9
oscillations were excluded from the graph), the target amplitude will be reached. Using
equation (2) now, with N = 4 and n = 81, the Q-factor is:

Q = Nn
Q = 89 ± 4 ∗ 4
Q = 360 ± 20

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 6

 From Figure 4, the Q-factor was found to be 370 ±8, and from Figure 5, the Q-factor was
found to be 352 ± 12. Since 370-8-20 = 342<360, this implies that the two methods agree on
the same Q-factor within the experimental uncertainties. However, considering that the Q-
factor from Figure 5 had such a large uncertainty (20 as opposed to 8), it is likely that the Q-
factor calculated with the data from Figure 2 would end up being more accurate.
Figure 6: Plot of the period of the pendulum against length of pendulum
(Equation of best fit: T (L) = 1.987L0.496 )

The values with the uncertainties given by the data are a=1.99 ± 0.02 and b=0.496 ± 0.008,
where T(L) was fitted to the power series axb . Since these values are within the expected
relation of of equation (4) within the experimental error ( ±0.02 seconds) of the period, the
relationship between period and length calculated from the experimental results strongly
correlate with the theoretical relationship.
Figure 7: Plot of the log(period) of the pendulum against the log(length) of the
pendulum

(Equation of best fit: log(T ) = 0.496log(L) + 0.298)

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 7

 Using the linear equation fitted to the relationship between log(L) and log(T), the R^2 value
is calculated to be 0.97. Couple with the residuals of the fit, this shows strong correlation
between the data and the exponential fit above. The expected value is a = 0.500 and b =
0.301, given the fit was modeled to log(T ) = a ∗ log(L) + b, which is within the
±0.01 uncertainty for a and ±0.005 uncertainty for b. This further shows that the
experimental fit proves the theoretical relationship between period and length.

i) Relating Q-Factor with Energy:

(NOTE!: (Skip the following derivations if finding the word count too long) The following
derivations make many simplifications in order to estimate a proportionality relation between
the Q-factor and the Length. The relation then is put through a python code to determine the
best fit and determine the accuracy of the derivations.)
Note that Q-factor is the number of oscillations until it reaches a e−π of its original
amplitude. For any given length, the following is true (based on diagram below):

h = L(1 − (cos(θ))

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 8

 Figure 8: Note from this figure that using trigonometry, the height from the lowest point of the pendulum at θ
is L(1-cos( θ )) (Dourmashkin, 2016)

where the angle of release is θ , h is the initial height of the pendulum compared to its lowest
point, and L is the length of the pendulum. Since potential energy is proportional to this
height, then Q-factor is the number of oscillations until it reaches L(1 − (cos(θ ∗ e−π ))
from its original height L(1 − (cos(θ)). Therefore the difference in energy is:

mgL(cos(θ ∗ e−π )) − (cos(θ))

For all the different lengths done in this experiment, the mass, gravitational acceleration, and
angle of release is constant. Therefore, the target energy change is directly proportional to the
length of the pendulum. Therefore if the pendulum loses an average of f(L) energy lost per
oscillation due to the frictional forces and an average of a(L) energy per oscillation due to the
air resistance, then the Q factor is simply, where f(L) and a(L) are functions dependent on
length:

kL
Q=
f(L) + a(L)

Where k = mg(cos(θ ∗ e−π )) − (cos(θ)) is a constant

Then it simply remains to find estimations for the functions for f(L) and a(L) in terms of L.

ii) Frictional Forces at the Fulcrum:

The equation of the damped pendulum is determined by:

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 9

 b dθ
Figure 9: Differentiable Relationship of a damped pendulum. The middle term, m dt
, is the force due to the
friction at the fulcrum. (CCP,1998)

Where the frictional force at the fulcrum of a pendulum can then determined by the
dampening factor of the pendulum. That is, the frictional force is assumed to be proportional
to the angular velocity of pendulum (disregarding air resistance). Since the total period is
T = 2 L , the average angular velocity is:

2π π
ω= =
T L

Assuming the average frictional force is then proportional to the average angular velocity.
Since the distance the pendulum travels is 4(Lθ), the work the frictional force does is
proportional to:

W ork = distance ∗ (averageforce)

1
W ∝ L(4θ) ∗
L
W ∝ L
f(l) = W = m L

Therefore the estimate of energy lost due to friction at the fulcrum is f(l) = m L for
some constant m.

iii) Air Resistance:

The equation of air resistance is estimated as the following:

ρCD 2
F= Av
2
ρCD
2
is assumed as a constant. The effective A is the cross-sectional area of the string added
to the cross-sectional area of the bob, which can be represented as (pL+q), where p and q are
constants. The effective v is v = L ∗ ω , and since it is known from above w ∝
1
L
, v2 ∝ ( L )2 = L. Therefore:
L

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 10

 a(L) = W
∝ F ∗ L(4θ)
∝ L(p ∗ L + q) ∗ L
a(L) = nL2 (pL + q)

Where n, p, and q are constants.

iv) Q-factor vs length form:

Therefore, dividing all the coefficients by n and p (synonymous to assume they are 1), the
form of the function Q(L) in terms of L is:

kL
Q(L) =
m L + L2 (L + q)

Where k, m, and q are constants.

Figure 10: Plot of the Q-factor vs Length Graph:

180L
(Equation of best fit: Q(L) = 0.15 L +L 2 (L+0.31)
)

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 11

 Figure 11: Extended graph of the Q-factor vs Length model using Desmos. Note that for lengths smaller than
the optimal length of 0.22m, the frictional forces mostly determine the Q-Factor. For lengths larger than the
optimal length of 0.22m, the air resistance mostly determines the Q-factor

From this graph, the k, m, and L values are 180 ± 60, 0.14 ± 0.04, 0.3 ± 0.2 With the
exception of an outlier, all of the data residual fall within the graph, which supports the
derivation of Q-factor and length relationship. However, it is to be noted that considering the
uncertainty of the value k = 180 is ±60 and of value c is 0.14±0.04, it is difficult to say if
the data fully supports this relation. This is likely due to the many other factors which also
impact the Q-factor.

Section 4 (Uncertainty and Error Analysis):

The calculation of uncertainties have been included for the relevant calculations of various
constants derived from the experiment throughout the experiment. These values were
evaluated using a python code based on the measurement uncertainties of the independent
and dependent variables. The table below summarizes the uncertainties for the independent
and dependent variables used in this report.

Variable Uncertainty Reasoning

The Tracker software tracks the pendulum in 30 fps, or 30

(time) time
frame per seconds. This means each frame is around 1/30 =
elasped (t), Period ±0.03 seconds
0.03 seconds, which means the uncertainty is this value as
(T)
well.
The tape measurer used to measure the pendulum had units
(distance) Length
±0.01 m of 0.02 m. By convention, the uncertainty is then 0.02/2 =
of pendulum (L)
0.01 m

(angles) position ±0.02 rad The protractor used to measure the angles had units of 1
(x), amplitude degree. Converting from degrees to radians, the uncertainty is

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 12

 (A), angle of determined to be 0.02 rad. Similarly, the Tracker Software
release (θ ) was also set to a 0.02 rad uncertainty.

(log(x), where x The uncertainty of a value is determined by the general

was the original equation (max-min)/2. Therefore given the original value of
±log( x+dx
x−dx
)/2
value) log(T) x and the uncertainty dx, the uncertainty to the left can be
log(L) derived using logarithmic arithmetic.
The Q-factor calculations depending on the quality of the
Q-factor ±?
data taken and the value outputed by the python code.

In Figure 4, the residual plot implies that there are multiple experimental errors, other than
the measurement uncertainties, that are amplifying as the oscillations increase.

One error comes from the Tracker software. This is because in the 0.033 second time frame at
the bottom of the arc, the bob’s uncertainty is larger than at the top of its arc, since its velocity
is significantly less. Ultimately, the error in position measured by Tracker software’s
increases and decreases every oscillation, as illustrated by the periodic spikes in residual.

The second error comes from the experimental design. Since the length of the two strings are
of slightly unequal lengths, it is likely that the strings will have slightly different periods. For
this reason, they will generate a residual graph that resembles two sinusoidal curves
superimposed onto each other.

Considering the graph fit well with the points, however, the error due to these factors largely
did not affect the experimental results.

In Figure 10, the uncertainties found for the parameters were large, although were less than
the original values. This can be attributed to the numerous assumptions made in the
derivation of the estimation between the Q-factor and the length. The major assumptions for
this derivation are listed as below:

θ is a small angle
the average angular velocity can be used to estimate angular velocity

the average f(L) is proportional to the to the inital f(L)

frictional forces around fulcrum is proportional to angular velocity

frictional forces and air resistance were the dominant forces in the determining the Q-
factor and vice versa

assuming work done by air resistance did not affect frictional forces around fulcrum had
nothing to do with each other.

Improvements:

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 13

 Considering how exactly how the tracker uncertainty and velocity of the bob will better help
determine uncertainties in the quantities calculated throughout the report.

Considering how to better estimate and determine the following values in the derivations in
the future will better improve the estimation of Q-factor versus Length:

the angular velocity at each instant in the oscillation.

the average f(L) over all oscillations.

affect of air resistance on the frictional forces and vice versa.

the meaning of the k,n, and q coefficients in the model derived.

Section 5 (Conclusions):
For one oscillation, a home-made pendulum can fit the theoretical model of a simple
pendulum very well. This is supported by the experimentally zero change in period regardless
of the angle of release, shown in Figure 1. However, it was later shown that for multiple
oscillations, the simple pendulum was better modeled by a damped oscillator by the position
and amplitude versus time graph.

This was used to calculate the Q-factor using two methods, which produced a Q-factor for a
0.38 meter long pendulum, each of which was within experimental error of the other.
However, the Q-factor calculated with the Python program was chosen as the preferred
method due to its lower uncertainty.

The lab proceeded to test the affect of the length on the motion of the pendulum. The values
of the period and the Q-factor of the pendulum were tested against the length of the
pendulum, from a release angle of 30 degrees. The first experiment proved the relation that
period was proportional to L , using both a log graph to calculate linear regression and the
residual graph from the original graph. This relation was then used extensively, along with
some trigonometry, the differential equation for the motion of a damped pendulum, and the
theoretical formula of air resistance, to determine a proportionatlity approximation for the Q-
factor. The constants were then found by the best fitting curve with a python code. Although
the uncertainty values were large, they were smaller than the parameters defined, and
therefore supported the theoretical model from the derivations.
It can be concluded from the derivation that there are 3 governing factors which determine
the Q-factor, and therefore the decay rate, of the pendulum. The first governing factor is the
increase in potential energy of the pendulum as the length increases, which decreases the
decay rate of the pendulum proportional to L. The second governing factor is the work done
by frictional forces at the frulcrum, which increases the decay rate of the pendulum
proportional to L . The last governing factor is the work done by the force due to air

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 14

 resistance, which increases the decay of the pendulum proportional to L2 (L + q). Therefore
when L is small, work done by the frictional forces at the fulcrum is larger than the potential
energy increase which is in turn larger than the air resistive forces. On the other hand, when L
is large, work done by the work done by air resistive forces is larger than the potential energy
increase which is in turn larger than the work done by frictional forces at the fulcrum.
Therefore, it can be concluded there must be some optimal length for Q-factor of the
pendulum, which is around 0.22m based on the data collected for this pendulum.

References:
Amore, P. et al. (2007). The nonlinear pendulum: formulas for the large amplitude period.

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2020, May 26). Pythagorean theorem

CCP. The pendulum, part 1. (1998). Retrieved October 28, 2022, from
https://services.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffeq/pendulum/pend1.html
Mazur, E. (2022). Principles and practice of physics. Pearson.

Peter Dourmashkin. (2016). Classical Mechanics: MIT 8.01 Course Notes.

Pendulum Lab Report 3(Final Rough Copy 1) 15