LEVEL 100 Lab Reports

PHYSICS 105

EXPERIMENT: M1

APPARATUS

1. Pendulum bob
2. string
3. retort stand
4. stop watch and
5. meter rule

SETUP

Figure 1: Simple pendulum oscillation

TITLE
Determination of the acceleration due to gravity using a simple pendulum

AIM
To determine the acceleration due to gravity using a simple pendulum undergoing
oscillation

PROCEDURE
Refer to manual

1
RESULTS
From the experiment, average time taken for the pendulum bob to undergo 20
oscillations at different heights (h) was tabulated as shown below: where the
Period of oscillation (T):

and error in the Period is given as:

dT
dtav

dT dtav

dT
dT = 0.0005

Table 1: Time taken for 20 oscillations at different heights and the period of
oscillations
h(m) t1(s) t2(s) t3(s) tav(s) T t T 2( s 2)
± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.0005 ± 0.001
0.30 40.97 41.34 41.18 41.16 2.0580 4.235
0.40 39.28 38.53 38.72 38.84 1.9420 3.771
0.50 37.25 36.97 37.00 37.07 1.8535 3.436
0.60 34.81 34.56 34.78 34.72 1.7360 3.014
0.70 32.28 32.28 33.03 32.53 1.6265 2.646
0.80 29.88 29.97 30.06 29.97 1.4985 2.246
0.90 27.25 27.28 27.16 27.23 1.3615 1.854
ANALYSIS
Gradient is given as:
4T2(s2)
m= (2)
4h(m)
From the theory,
T2 = 4π2H − 4π2h (3) g g

Comparing eqn (3) to the equation of a straight line:

Table 2:
Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: T

2
 g
From the table, a graph of T2(s2) against h(m) is plotted to find the gradient
and intercept

Figure 2: A graph of T2(s2) on the vertical axis against h(m) on the horizontal axis
From the graph,

Gradient: m= -
3.9225
Intercept: c = 5.3824
Therefore, using the values of m and c to obtain the acceleration due to gravity
(g) and H in the equations obtained in Table 2.

4π2
m = −
g
42
g = −
πm

g
g = 10.0672 ms−2

Also;

4π2H
c=
g
c×g

3
 H= 4π2

H
H = 1.3753 m

Error Analysis
From the graph gradient was obtained by:

m (4)

Hence error in Gradient (δm) = % error in gradient

This implies that % error in gradient = % error of T2 + % error of h

100%
= −0.0255% +−0.2549%
= −0.2804% δm

δm =
0.0110

Also error in Intercept (δc) = % error in Intercept

This implies that % error in Intercept = % error of T2 - (% error of gradient + % error
of h)

= 0.1132%

From the calculated error in m and c respectively, the corresponding error in

acceleration due to gravity and H are calculated as:

error in g

4π2
g = −
m
4π2
m2
4π2
δg = × δm
m2

δg

4
 =
δm

error in H
g×c
H= 4π2

δH
δc

δH c

δH
δH = 0.0016

CONCLUSION

Table 3: Acceleration due to gravity g and the value of H from the experiment
g = 10.0672 ± 0.0282
H = 1.3753 ± 0.0016
Precautions taken
1. Bob was displaced at a smaller angle
2. Avoided parallax error in counting 20 oscillations
EXPERIMENT: M4
APPARATUS

1. laminated sheet
2. wood with plastic side
3. standard masses
4. electronic balance
5. spring balance

5
 SETUP

Figure 3: Static and Kinetic friction acting on a wood

TITLE
Determination of the coefficients of static and kinetic friction

AIM
To determine the coefficients of static and kinetic friction acting on a wood

PROCEDURE
Refer to manual

RESULTS
From measurement, mass of the wooden block = 74 g = 0.074 kg Normal
force (N) is given as:

N=mg
where g = 9.81 ± 0.01 ms2
and error in the Normal force is given as:

δN = % error in mass + % error in gravity

100%
= 0.0319% + 0.3193%
= 0.3512%

δN
δN = 0.011

6
Table 4: Static friction of wooden surface of block placed on laminated sheet at
increasing mass
mass(kg) N=mg fs1 fs2 fs3 fsav
± 0.001 ± 0.011 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1
0.074 0.726 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.174 1.707 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.273 2.678 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1
0.372 3.649 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5
0.465 4.562 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
0.558 5.474 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.7
Av = 3.1323
Table 5: Static friction of plastic surface of block placed on laminated sheet at
increasing mass
mass(kg) N=mg fs1 fs2 fs3 fsav
± 0.001 ± 0.011 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1
0.074 0.726 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.174 1.707 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9
0.273 2.678 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8
0.372 3.649 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
0.465 4.562 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0
0.558 5.474 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.5
Av = 3.1323
Table 6: Kinetic friction of wooden surface of block placed on laminated sheet at
increasing mass
mass(kg) N=mg fs1 fs2 fs3 fsav
± 0.001 ± 0.011 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1
0.074 0.726 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.174 1.707 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.273 2.678 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7
0.372 3.649 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
0.465 4.562 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
0.558 5.474 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4
Av = 3.1323
Table 7: Kinetic friction of plastic surface of block placed on laminated sheet at
increasing mass
mass(kg) N=mg fs1 fs2 fs3 fsav
± 0.001 ± 0.011 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1
0.074 0.726 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.174 1.707 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.273 2.678 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5
0.372 3.649 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.465 4.562 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.558 5.474 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

7
 Av = 3.1323
From table 4, the static friction on the wooden surface of the block is plotted
against the normal reaction

Figure 4: A graph of fs of wooden surface on the vertical axis against the

Normal (N) on the horizontal axis

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: f = µN

Gradient: m= 0.4422
Intercept: c = 0
From table 5, the static friction on the plastic surface of the block is plotted
against the normal reaction

8
Figure 5: A graph of fs of plastic surface on the vertical axis against the Normal
(N) on the horizontal axis

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: f = µN

Gradient: m= 0.6449
Intercept: c = 0
From table 6, the kinetic friction on the wooden surface of the block is plotted
against the normal reaction

9
Figure 6: A graph of fk of wooden surface on the vertical axis against the
Normal (N) on the horizontal axis

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: f = µN

Gradient: m= 0.2489
Intercept: c = 0
From table 7, the kinetic friction on the plastic surface of the block is plotted
against the normal reaction

10
Figure 7: A graph of fk of plastic surface on the vertical axis against the Normal
(N) on the horizontal axis

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: f = µN

Gradient: m= 0.1894
Intercept: c = 0
ANALYSIS
Comparing the equation of a straight line at intercept c = 0 given as:

y=mx (5)

to the relation between the friction of a surface and the normal reaction, given by:
f=µN (6)
This shows that the coefficients of kinetic and static friction for each surface can be
deduced from the gradient of the straight lines, m = µ

Wooden surface Plastic surface

µs = 0.4 µs = 0.7
µk = 0.3 µk = 0.2
Error Analysis
Error in Gradient (δm) = Error in µ (δµ) From
theory,
f
µ= (7)

11
 N
This implies that % error of µ = % error of f + % error of N

For wooden surface

% error of µs 100%
= 25% + 2.75%
= 27.75%

δµs
δµs = 0.1

% error of µk 100%
= 33.33% + 3.67%
= 37%

δµk
δµk = 0.1

For plastic surface

% error of µs 100%
= 14.29% + 1.57%
= 15.86%

δµs
δµs = 0.1

% error of µk 100%
= 50% + 5.5%
= 55.5%

δµk
δµk = 0.1

CONCLUSION
Therefore, experimentally the coefficients of static and kinetic friction for each
surface were determined as;

Wooden surface Plastic surface

µs = 0.4 ± 0.1 µs = 0.7 ± 0.1
µk = 0.3 ± 0.1 µk = 0.2 ± 0.1
The coefficient of static friction for the plastic surface of the block is greater
than the coefficient of static friction for the wooden surface of the block but the
coefficient of kinetic friction for the plastic surface of the block is smaller than the
coefficient of kinetic friction for the wooden surface of the block. These values are
reasonable because as soon as the box starts to slide the friction force usually

12
decreases since it’s easier to keep the box moving than to start it moving . Hence
the coefficient of kinetic friction is usually less than the coefficient of static friction
for any given pair of surfaces.
EXPERIMENT: M5
APPARATUS

1. Meter rule
2. Rubber band
3. standard Masses
4. Vernier calipers
5. Rectangular wooden beam
6. Stop watch
7. G-clamp

SETUP

Figure 8: Wooden beam cantilever system to determine the Young’s modulus of

wood

TITLE
Determination of Young’s modulus using a cantilever

AIM
To determine Young’s modulus of wood

PROCEDURE
Refer to manual
RESULTS

Table 8: Depression of the wooden beam due to load

mass(g) s1(cm) s2(cm) s3(cm) sav(cm)

13
 ±1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1 ± 0.1
50 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
100 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7
150 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5
200 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
250 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
300 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
Table 9: Period of the simple harmonic motion of the wooden beam due to load

length(m) t1(s) t2(s) t3(s) tav(s) T= T2(s2) l3(cm3)

t10av(s)
± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.01 ± 0.001 ± 0.002 ± 0.03
0.90 4.68 4.25 4.47 4.47 0.447 0.200 0.73
0.85 3.84 4.41 4.40 4.22 0.422 0.178 0.61
0.80 3.66 3.56 3.87 3.70 0.370 0.137 0.51
0.75 3.13 2.69 3.12 2.98 0.298 0.089 0.42
0.70 2.75 3.05 2.93 2.91 0.291 0.085 0.34
0.65 2.59 2.60 2.18 2.46 0.246 0.061 0.28

Figure 9: A graph of Mass(g) on the vertical axis against Depression(cm) on the

horizontal axis

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: m = 3glIY3 s

Gradient: m= 56.411

14
 Intercept: c= 0

Figure 10: A graph of T2(s)2 on the vertical axis against l3(m)3 on the horizontal axis

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: T2 = 4π3IY2Ml3

Gradient: m= 0.2656
Intercept: c = 0
ANALYSIS
Mass of wooden beam = 147 g = 0.147 kg
Width (b) = 3.075 cm = 0.0308 m
Thickness (d) = 0.74 cm = 0.0074 m

I for a beam of rectangular cross-section (of width b and thickness d) is given

by:

bd3
I

I
I = (1.0401 ± 0.0003)× 10−9m4

From graph (1)

Comparing the equation of a straight line at intercept c = 0 given as:

y=mx (8)

to the relation between the mass(g) and the depression s(cm), given by:

15
 mgl3
s=
3IY
3IY
m = gl3 s

This shows that the gradient = 3glIY3 = 56.411 gcm−1 = 5.6411 kgm−1

Therefore Young’s modulus from graph (1):

3IY 5.6411
= gl3

gl3
Y = 5.6411 ×
3I

Y
Y = 17.737 GPa

From graph (2)

Comparing the equation of a straight line at intercept c = 0 given as:

y=mx (9)

to the relation between the mass(g) and the depression s(cm), given by:

T2 = 4 π2Ml3
3IY

This shows that the gradient = s2m−3

Therefore Young’s modulus from graph (2):
4π2M 0.2656
=
3IY
4π2M
Y=
3I × 0.2656 Y

Y = 7.005 GPa

Error Analysis
For graph (1)
δY gl3

16
 δ
= −5.6411 × 2
× I
δI I

δY = 0.015 GPa

For graph (2)

δY 4π2M
=

δ 3I2(0.2656)
δY = 0.002 GPa

CONCLUSION
Therefore, experimentally, the values of Young’s modulus is determined.

Table 10: Young’s modulus from the depression due to load and Young’s modulus
from the period of simple harmonic motion due to load
Ys = 17.737 ± 0.015 G Pa

YT = 7.005 ± 0.002 G Pa

relative Y = 10.732 ± 0.415 G Pa

The Young’s modulus of wood using the cantilever is determined to be
10.732 ± 0.415 G Pa

Precautions taken
1. Accurate measurement was taken for the depression
2. Avoided parallax error in counting 10 oscillations of the loaded wooden
beam
EXPERIMENT: H5 APPARATUS

1. glass tube holder

2. Beaker (400 ml)
3. Erlenmeyer flask (100 ml)
4. thermometers
5. Retort stand and clamp
6. Stop watch

17
 SETUP

Figure 11:

TITLE
Determination of the rate of heat transfer for bodies at different temperatures

AIM
To measure the rate of heat transfer for bodies at different temperatures
PROCEDURE
Refer to manual

RESULTS

Table 11: Temperature of flask and beaker at 50◦C for different time intervals

Time(min) Temperature in Flask Tf (◦C) Temperature in Beaker TB(◦C)

± 0.1 ± 0.5 ± 0.5

18
 0.0x 19 45
0.5 22 42
1.0 24 40
1.5 26 38
2.0 27 37
2.5 28 36
3.0 29 35
3.5 29 35
4.0 30 34
4.5 30 34
5.0 31 34
15.0 32 33
Table 12: Temperature of flask and beaker at 80◦C for different time intervals

Time(min) Temperature in Flask Tf (◦C) Temperature in Beaker TB(◦C)

± 0.1 ± 0.5 ± 0.5
0.0 17.2 63
0.5 25 56
1.0 29 53
1.5 31 49
2.0 33 48
2.5 35 42
3.0 36 41
3.5 37 40
4.0 38 45
4.5 39 44
5.0 39 43
15.0 40 41
From table 11:

19
Figure 12: A graph of Tf and Tb on the vertical axis against Time(min) on the
horizontal axis

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory:

Gradient of tangent of Tf m= 0.6933
Gradient of tangent of Tb m= -0.6177
From graph 12:

20
Figure 13: A graph of Tf and Tb on the vertical axis against Time(min) on the
horizontal axis

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory:

Gradient of tangent of Tf m= 1.0992
Gradient of tangent of Tb m= -1.0223
ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION
Precautions taken
1.
2.

21
 EXPERIMENT: H1
APPARATUS

1. standard mass object

2. thermometer
3. Calorimeter
4. Electronic balance
5. Retort stand and clamp
6. Beaker

SETUP

Figure 14: A setup of cooling with a calorimeter

TITLE
Determination of the specific heat capacity of an object by the method of cooling

AIM
To determine the specific heat capacity of an object through the method of
cooling

PROCEDURE
Refer to manual

22
RESULTS

Table 13: Calorimeter + object + water

Time(min) Temperature (◦C)
±1 ± 0.1
0 65.0
5 62.0
10 59.7
15 58.0
20 56.1
25 54.7
30 53.3
35 52.0
40 50.9
45 49.8
Table 14: Calorimeter + water
Time(min) Temperature (◦C)
±1 ± 0.1
0 64.0
5 61.0
10 58.6
15 56.7
20 55.0
25 53.4
30 51.7
35 50.5
From table 13:

Figure 15: A graph of Temperature(K) against time(s) for calorimeter + object

23
+ water

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: m = ddtθ(2)

Gradient: m= -0.0054
Intercept: c= 336.62
From table 14:

Figure 16: A graph of Temperature(K) against time(s) for calorimeter + water

From the graph,

Equation of a straight line: y = mx + c Theory: m = ddtθ(1)

Gradient: m= -0.0063
Intercept: c= 336.11
ANALYSIS
Mass of calorimeter (mc)= 195 g = 0.195 kg ± 0.01
Mass of calorimeter + object (mco) = 246 g = 0.246 kg
Mass of calorimeter + water + object = 345 g = 0.345 kg Mass of
calorimeter + water (mcw) = 301 g = 0.301 kg

mw = mcw - mc = 0.106 kg ± 0.001 mo =

mco - mc = 0.051 kg ± 0.001

cw = 4.20 × 103 Jkg−1K−1 cc =

0.389 × 103 Jkg−1K−1

24
From the theory the specific heat capacity of the object co can be determined
from:

dθ dθ cwmw + ccmc cwmw +

ccmc + como
θ
dt (1) dt (2) dθ d
)
(521.055) = (521.055 + 0.051 × co
dt (1) dt (2)
(521.055)(−0.0063) = (521.055 + 0.051 × co)(−0.0054)
−3.2827 = −2.8137 +−0.0002754 × co
−0.469 = −0.0002754 × co

co
co = 1702.9775 Jkg−1K−1 = 1.703
× 103 Jkg−1K−1

where ddtθ(1) is the gradient of the tangent from figure 16 and

d θ
dt (2) is the gradient of the tangent from figure 15

Error Analysis

δCo = δmw +δmc

δmo

δCo
= % error of numerator + % error of denominator

100%
= 0.5797% + 1.9607%
= 2.5405%

δco
CONCLUSION

Table 15: Heat capacity of the object was calculated from:

cwmw + ccmc cwmw + ccmc + como ddtθ(2)

heat capacity of the object = co

co = ( 1.703 ± 0.043)×103 Jkg−1K−1

25
Reasons for Error recorded
1. Warm water cooled to below 80◦C before being put in calorimeter
2.

26