Hooke's Law LAB REPORT
Hooke's Law LAB REPORT
Omar Nizar
Abdullah Rukaya
20/11/2020
Objectives and Purpose:
explore whether a rubber band obeys Hooke's law for springs in actuality
Identify the type and magnitude of deformation in the spring
Calculate the spring constant for the elastic-band if applicable for different known
masses using the change in the length of the spring
(Note that these the forces operate in opposite directions with equal magnitude)
As soon as the deforming force is removed the restoring force restores the body to its original
shape. Of course, this isn’t true for all deformations, many deformations result in permanently
changing the shape of the body. These deformations are called plastic deformations. Both types
of deformations generally accrue for all objects, their elastic limited (in simple terms: the
longest an object can stretch and still be able to return to its original form) depends on the
deforming force applied and on the properties of the material.
In 1660, Robert Hooke derived the Empirical Law which we call today Hooke’s law, it was
discovered through observations. Hooke's law applies to twisting and volume changes by
relating stresses and strains in a more advanced version (using e) and can be also applied to
very simple examples in one dimension whether vertically or horizontally it states that in a
spring the Deforming force is directly proportion to the change in length.
Fdef ∝ Δx
Through the law of proportionality, we can say that the deforming force is equal to the change
in length times some constant, let call this constant K
F=-KΔx
You might notice a negative sign was placed, that is because we are here, we are measuring the
restoring force which is the opposite of the deforming force as mentioned earlier
The force in a vertical spring is the gravitational force, using newton’s second law as we know
it’s calculated through Fg=mg and it is the deforming force. Figure one shows how the spring
looks when in its natural position, when it’s in equilibrium, and when it’s in motion.
Figure 1
Important notes:
All figures are labeled and cited in the last page of the report
Hypothesis is placed after data so it makes sense to the reader
Material Used:
Spring
Rubber band
Ring stand
Stand clamps
Ruler
Labeled masses
C-clamp
Safety instructions:
Made sure area under the attacked weight is clear in case the weight falls
Assured that the stand was stable enough to withstand the weight added without moving
Procedure:
Fixed the stand on the table and made sure it’s stable
Constructed a table to record the mass, staring, ending position, force, and change in
position (stretch)
Attached the rubber on the spring and added the mass to it
Measured the length using a ruler from the start to the end of the rubber band
Repeated the process for all masses
Filled the table mentioned above
Repeated the process without the rubber band (directly added the mass to the spring)
Repeated the process for all masses
Filled the constructed table
Data and analysis:
Deforming force: Gravitational Force
Type of deformation: elastic deformation (not mainly discussed in Results)
Known masses: Ranging from 39 to 500 grams
Spring constant: unknown
My Hypothesis:
Would be that the rubber band isn’t going to obey Hooke’s law, since the rubber band’s elastic
limit is low, the initial position of the rubber band is going to change and the ratio between the
gravitational force and the change is length isn’t going to be constant. In other words, if the
elastic limit for the rubber band is low, then the rubber band won’t obey Hooke's law. In the
case of the second experiment (Spring) I think it’s going to obey Hooke’s law and the spring
constant is going to be constant.
Data table 1:
The following table represents the length masses taken initially and after attaching the sets of
known masses to the rubber band. All forces are measured in Newtons. All mass numerical
values are in grams and limited to an uncertainty of ±0.01 grams. All lengths are measured in
millimeters and limited to an uncertainty of ±0.25 mm which very extreme but there to cover
all the systematic and random errors that are mentioned under the uncertainties section later.
Data table 2:
The following table is similar to the previous one with the exception that it’s a different spring.
Measurements follow the same units and limits for uncertainties.
Trial Mass Starting Final length Gravitational Stretch (mm)
length Force (N)
1 50 75 84 490 9
2 150 75 94 1470 19
3 200 75 96.5 1960 21.5
4 250 75 105 2450 30
5 300 75 111 2940 36
6 350 75 114 3430 39
7 400 75 118 3920 43
8 450 75 121 4410 46
9 500 75 124 4900 49
Data table 2
Uncertainties errors:
These measurements are 100% accurate. There are many errors including human errors in
reading, systematic errors in the ruler and in the scale. The stand on which the springs were
attached kept bending downwards due to the large mass added. The elastic limit for the rubber
band is relatively low so it might have changed its initial position after adding a heavy weight.
Uncertainty calculations aren’t required as mentioned in the guide.
Results:
The springs changed in length when attaching different masses, the following graph shows the
stretch of the spring against the gravitational force