Section 001 Experiment 2 Date performed 1.29.07 Date due: 2..

07

THE OSCILLOSCOPE

Principal investigator: Skeptic: Researcher TA

___________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________

Role

DC

AD

RC

Q1

Q2

PI

PG

I introduction DC data and calculation AD analysis and discussion RC results and conclusion Q1/Q2 quiz/prelab PI principal investigator points PG personal grade

I.

Introduction
The goal of this lab was to learn how to use the Oscilloscope and become familiar

with using the apparatus for future experiments. The Oscilloscope, often referred to as an O-scope is a machine that can calculate the voltage of a system over a certain amount of time. This measurement is then given in the form of voltage versus time graph. Becoming familiar with the apparatus now will give us the experience we need to use the O-scope with ease. The first step in this lab was familiarizing ourselves with the volts/division knob and the time/division knob. Each of theses knobs changes the scale of the O-scopes measurements. In this step the researcher adjusted the volts/division knob and the time/division knob to their lowest settings. The skeptic then read these values and transferred the information to the PI who processed the information into an excel spreadsheet. The volts/division knob and the time/division knob were then set on their highest setting and the procedure was repeated. In the next step of the experiment, the function generator was set to 500 hertz to give a sine wave by the skeptic. The researcher then adjusted the time/division knob so that the graph showed roughly ten cycles. The skeptic then measured the peak to peak distance and calculated the root mean squared voltage. The PI recorded frequency, the volts/division, the Y-deflection, the peak to peak voltage of the wave, the voltage from origin to trough and the root mean squared voltage in an excel table. This process was repeated two more times with frequencies of 1,000 and 1,200 hertz. In the third and final step of the experiment the function generator was again set to 500 hertz in the sine wave function by the skeptic. The researcher then adjusted the time/division so that about ten cycles were on the screen and so each cycle could be easily read. The time/division was then measured by the researcher. The skeptic then calculated

the period, experimental frequency and percent difference of the generated frequency and the experimental frequency. The PI then put this data into an Excel spreadsheet. The groups first meeting was right after the lab. The group discussed each others roles and the data that was going to be sent out via email.

Equipment Used: 1 Digital oscilloscope - #11 1 Sine wave and square wave generator - #FG2135

Reference: Ellis, Steven. University of Kentucky Department of Physics and Astronomy: Laboratory Manual. 2007 (pgs. 9-13).

II.

Data & Conclusions

In the first step of the experiment the smallest and larges values of the volts/division knob and the time/divisions knob were simply read off the O-scope and recorded. The uncertainty was then taken as one half of the smallest measurement. The following table shows these findings.
Part A Y axis X axis Min Est. 4 2 mV 1 0.5 ns Max Est 10 5 V 0.2 0.1s

In the second step of the experiment three different frequencies were set from the function generator. The volts/division was then set to show ten cycles on the screen and the volts/division was recorded. The distance from peak to trough was measured as well as the distance from the origin to peak. Finally, the root mean square voltage was then calculated

using the equation Vrms = Vpeak / 2 . For example when the frequency was 500hertz the

Vrms was 3.536 volts (

Freq. Part B 1 2 3 Hz 500 Hz 1000Hz 1200Hz

5volts 2

= 3.536volts ). The following table shows these results.

Y-

V/div 10 10 10

Deflect. 1 1 1

Vpp 10 10 10

Vp 5 5 5

Vrms 3.536 V 3.536 V 3.536 V

In the final step two frequencies were set on the function generator in the form of both the sine and square waves. The time/division was then recorded as well as the X-deflection. From these two values the period was then calculated. For example the 500Hz frequency in the sine wave had a time/division of 2.5 milliseconds and an x deflection was 1 division. When we multiply the two, the division cancels out and we are left with the time of our

period (

2.5milli sec ond 1division = 2.5milli sec onds ) . From this we can use the equation division

f = 1 / T to solve for frequency. Therefore the frequency of the first example is 400 Hz ( 1 / 2.5 x10^ 3 sec = 400 Hz ). Finally the percent difference between this experimental 2(Va Ve) x100% . Va + Ve

frequency and the actual frequency was calculated using %difference =

For the first example this was 22.2% ( graph shows all of these calculations.

2(500 Hz 400 Hz ) x100% = 22.2% ). The following 500 Hz + 400 Hz

Freq. Part C Sine 1 Hz 500 Time/Div 2.5 ms

XDeflect. 1

Period T 2.5 ms Exptl. F 400 Hz % Diff. 22.2% 590 Hz

1.058 Sine 2 Square 1 Square 2 1000 500 1000 1.0 ms 2.5 ms 1.0 ms 1 0.6 1 1.0 ms 4.166 ms 1.0 ms 1 kHz 666.6 Hz 1 kHz 0% 28.5% 0% kHz 590 Hz 1.058 kHz

III. Analysis & Discussion

Original oscilloscope data show uncertainties involved with each measurement. Errors are present in any empirical measurement and excellent science has to account for these errors. These result from the researcher on the smallest measure from the experimental scale. A good example is using a meter stick in a lab and estimating the amount of millimeters between centimeters for a more precise quantitative analysis. Error allows for variation in half the smallest increment in the focal scale. These errors are insignificant and are mentioned to relate human error in the laboratory experiment. Sample Calculation: error propagation of uncertainties Part A T = time error = error = V = volts D = divisions

1 1 V 1 1 = 50V = 5.0V 2 5 D 2 5 1 1 T 1 1 = 1.0 s = 0.1s 2 5 D 2 5

Part C showed percent differences rather significant in relative quantitative comparisons. A point to consider is the fact that there was an analog dial on the function generator but the oscilloscope shows data digitally. Sample Calculation: Percent Difference 2(500 Hz 400 Hz ) x100% = 22.2% 500 Hz + 400 Hz

Such a large percent difference requires further investigation and explanations. As far as ordering error in terms of significance this is most likely the primary cause of error in the experiment. Random errors could be summarized as those mentioned where an analog dial is adjusted by a researcher. Systematic errors could be best summarized as old wires with degraded electrical conductivity due to a number of causes, an older function generator with similar problems and generally any errors associated the experimental setup. The following figure shows the relationship between amplitude, frequency and wavelength all directly related values when quantifying studies on waves. Figure 1. Graph displaying volts versus time

IV. Results & Conclusions

The empirical results were reasonably close to theoretical quantities. For sine wave number 1, the percent difference was 22.2 % while the first square wave was 28.5 %. Scaling the error-adjusted data with theoretical data on a number line is an instructive way to visually see the ranges of pertinent data in an investigation. It should be noted that for the analog dial on the function generator there was a 50 Hz uncertainty for all theoretical and experimental values.

Figure 2. Number line showing error for sine wave number 1 Hz 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Experimental 400 50 Hz Hz

Theoretical 500 50 Hz

The above number line with the uncertainties for the experimental values shows little overlap and therefore hardly any agreement in the data probably due to an old function generator and mentioned possible causes for error.

Figure 3. shows the error for Sine wave 2 on a number line for comparative analysis. Figure 3. Number line showing error for sine wave number 2 Hz 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200

Theoretical 1000 50 Hz Experimental 1000 50 Hz Hz This figure shows strong overlap and agreement in the data with hardly any appearance of systematic or random error. The square wave errors showed a similar pattern when depicted on a number line as shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Number line showing error for square wave number 1

Hz 300

350

400

Theoretical 500 50 Hz 450 500 550

600

650

700

Experimental 666.6 50 Hz Significant error is depicted as shown in Figure 4. Random error is probably the cause because this is the only wave where the ranges do not overlap. This test was not accurate as well as this difference does not suggest the predictability of systematic error.

Figure 5. Number line showing error for square wave number 2

Hz 800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

Theoretical 1000 50 Hz Experimental 1000 50 Hz Figure 5. shows the final experimental result with square wave 2 which depicts the patterned precision and great accuracy which appears to be exact. According to these data this suggest a excellent experimental setup with no appearance of systematic or random error. The primary purpose of this experiment was to understand how voltage changes over time in a system, specifically modulated by a function generator. Many applications of these concepts could be understood in terms of recording voltage in any industrial or residential electrical system to understand the depolarization of a neuron based on millivolts.

Another vitally important part of this study was to see how closely experimental data agreed to theoretical data based on quantifiable analyses. Scientific errors were present and accounted for. It was instructive to see how these errors affected the data. Conclusively, in the second and fourth test, phased waves could explain agreement between theoretical and experimental values. This was a very instructive lab in helping to understand the sine wave relationship between voltage and time. An entire range of reasons could help explain differences in the measurements. Older wires, a problem with the function generator and even disrupting electric fields could have interfered with the experimental setup. The research team collaborated well together to finish the project in a timely manner and everyone worked tremendously well together.