Physics 1408 Section A1

HOOKE’S LAW AND A SIMPLE SPRING

Mohammad D. Donde

Date Performed: October 07,

2023

Abstract
Two experiments were performed to find the spring constant of a steel spring. The spring
constant was determined statically, by measuring its elongation when subjected to
loading, and dynamically, by measuring the period of a mass hung from one end and set
into vertical oscillation. The resulting values of 2.94 ± 0.01 N/m and 2.98 ± 0.02 N/m,
respectively. Our spring's behavior followed Hooke's law to within the limits of accuracy
of the two experiments.

An Alternate Abstract:
The purpose of this experiment was to measure and compare the spring constant of a steel
spring using two different procedures. First we investigated the relationship between the
force applied to a spring and the displacement of the spring from its rest length. We
hung various masses from the springs, and measured the vertical displacement. We found
a spring constant of 2.94 ± 0.01 N/m. Our results confirmed Hooke’s Law, Fs = -kx. In
the second procedure, we set the spring into vertical oscillation with a suspended mass
and measured the period of oscillation. Using this method, we found a spring constant of
2.98 ± 0.02 N/m. Our results verified that the period of oscillation depended on the
effective mass of the spring and the period of oscillation.

1
A Poor Abstract – Too long because it has too much detail and unnecessary
information. (The worst problems are in italics.)
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the spring constant k of a steel spring
using two different methods. First we investigated the relationship between the force
applied to a spring and the displacement of the spring from its rest length in order to
verify Hooke’s law. We hung masses of 0.01 kg, 0.20 kg, 0.30 kg, 0.04 kg, 0.05 kg, 0.06
kg, 0.70 kg, and 0.80 kg from the springs, and recorded the vertical displacements. We
made four measurements for each mass hung from the spring and used the average of the
four values in order to reduce random error. In this method, the main cause of error was
measurement. We found a spring constant of k = 2.94 ± 0.01 N/m. Our results confirmed
Hooke’s Law, the well known relationship that the magnitude of an elastic restoring
force on a spring is directly proportional to the displacement of the spring. This
relationship is named after the 17th century scientist Hooke who studied it. Next we
measured the period of a mass hung from one end of a spring and set into vertical
oscillation. We performed this process using the four different masses 0.145 kg, 0.105
kg, 0.055 kg, and 0.025kg. The period of each mass was measured three times using
three different amplitudes of oscillation. We found that the spring constant depended on
the effective mass of the spring and the period of oscillation. The period of the motion
was the same whether the amplitude of the oscillation is large or small. In this method,
the main cause of error was reaction time. Using this method we found a spring constant
of 2.98 ± 0.02 N/m. This value is consistent with the result obtained using the first
method. (291 words)

2
 Name: Date: Date Exp. Performed
Partner:
You can
include
TA’s Initials on data sheet Hooke’s Law and a Simple Spring uncertainty
for a tool
Part 1 such as a
Table 1 meter stick
in the top
Position Mass Location of the Mass Hanger Reference in cm ±0.05cm of a data
(g) Trial 1 Trial2 Trial 3 Trial 4 table.
±1%
Reference 0 69.55 69.50 69.50 69.50 If the value
1 1 69.27 69.19 69.18 69.17 is four sig
2 3 68.61 68.50 68.53 68.52 figs then
3 5 67.95 67.87 67.88 67.86 include the
4 10 66.42 66.20 66.21 66.20 trailing 0.
5 20 62.90 62.89 62.90 62.93
6 40 56.32 56.22 56.30 56.23 If you drop
7 60 49.65 49.60 49.61 49.6 that zero
8 80 42.97 42.97 42.95 42.95 then it is 3
9 100 36.32 36.30 36.32 36.32 sig figs!
10 120 29.63 29.70 29.72 29.72 This should
11 140 23.07 23.05 23.10 23.12 have been
49.60!
For the Table 2
subtraction
all the Force Displacement ( x10-2m ) Spring
uncertainties (N) Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Average Constant
were the ±1% (N/m )
same; thus it ±0.07 ±0.07 ±0.07 ±0.07
was put in 0.00981 -0.28 -0.36 -0.37 -0.38 -0.35 ± 0.02 2.8 ± 0.2
the top of a 0.0294 -0.94 -1.05 -1.02 -1.03 -1.01± 0.02 2.91± 0.08
column; that 0.0491 -1.60 -1.68 -1.67 -1.69 -1.66± 0.02 2.96± 0.05
was not 0.0981 -3.13 -3.35 -3.34 -3.35 -3.29± 0.05 2.98± 0.05
possible for
the average. 0.196 -6.65 -6.66 -6.65 -6.62 -6.65± 0.01 2.95± 0.03
0.392 -13.23 -13.33 -13.25 -13.32 -13.28± 0.02 2.95± 0.03
Do you 0.589 -19.90 -19.95 -19.94 -19.95 -19.94± 0.01 2.95± 0.03
know why 0.785 -26.58 -26.58 -26.60 -26.60 -26.59± 0.01 2.95± 0.03
there are 0.981 -33.23 -33.25 -33.23 -33.23 -33.24± 0.01 2.95± 0.03
only 2 sig 1.18 -39.92 -39.85 -39.83 -39.83 -39.86± 0.02 2.95± 0.03
figs here?
1.37 -46.48 -46.50 -46.45 -46.43 -46.47± 0.02 2.96± 0.03

Average Spring Constant k = 2.94 ± 0.01 N/m _

Spring Constant k from Graph = 2.95 N/m

Calculate the standard error.

There is a way to find the uncertainty for slopes of
graphs, but we will not do that in this course.

Remember to include units and uncertainty.

3
 Name: With 1% uncertainty in
the slotted masses, the
Part 2: uncertainty for 145g is
Cross out mistakes ±1g and for 55g, it is
Mass of spring = 10.19 ± 0.02 x 10-3 kg
with a single line; do ±0.06g; thus for the
not use white-out. smallest two loads, can be
written in the form below.
Table 3
Load (x10-3 kg)
145 105 55.0 25.0
(mass of spring) ±1%
Do not cross
Time for Trial 1 out mistakes
20 27.94 23.98 17.60 12.32
(small) this way!
oscillations Sometimes
Trial 2
27.79 24.06 17.44 12.56 12.40 what you had
(medium)
(s)
Trial 3 was correct.
(large) 27.90 23.95 17.34 12.03 12.34 You may
±0.08
want to be
Average able to read
27.88 ± 0.04 24.00± 0.03 17.46± 0.08 12.35± 0.02
20 oscillations (s)
it.
Period (s) 1.394± 0.002 1.200± 0.002 0.873± 0.004 0.618± 0.001

Period 2 (s2) 1.943 ± 0.006 1.440 ± 0.004 0.762± 0.007 0.382 ± 0.001

k from Eq. (3) (N/m) 3.01 ± 0.03 2.97± 0.03 3.02± 0.04 2.94± 0.03

Average Spring Constant k = 2.98± 0.02 N/m_ Period was 12.35s/20= 0.6175s
Uncertainty was 0.001; thus we
write the period with 3 sig figs
Spring Constant k from Graph = 3.01 N/m_ (0.618)

Spring’s Effective Mass from Graph = 0.0040 kg

k in parts 1 and 2 was 3 sig figs;

% Difference between k in Part 1 and Part 2 = _ 2 %_ but the difference between the
two values is one sig fig!!!!

Remember to include an uncertainty!

Guessing and then seeing what the value is for the average of a small number of trials helps build your ability to
predict uncertainty.
Why 0.08 in this case? One way to measure your reaction time is to have a friend hold a meter stick vertically
between your thumb and first finger; note the cm mark between your fingers; the friend drops the meter stick, and
you catch it. Determine how far it fell before your caught it. Since it had no initial velocity and the only force
acting on the meter stick is gravity, then d=½gt2. For most people, the distance the meter stick falls is about 15 cm.
However, there is a difference between someone dropping a meter stick and timing an oscillating object. When
timing an object, we can observe the motion and use the rhythm to reduce reaction time error. This might reduce
the timing error to a third of the original value: treaction time/3 = sqrt(2d/g)/3 = 0.06 s
However, there are two uncertainties – starting the stopwatch and stopping the stopwatch; thus, we need to
propagate the error. ∆t = sqrt(∆tstart + ∆tstart) = ∆treaction time sqrt(2) = 0.08s
We might have made a different assumption, then we might have used had a value or 0.05 to 1.0 s.

Remember to include units and uncertainty

4
 Restoring Force vs. Displacement Magnitude
1.4

Force = 2.95x - 0.0001

x = displacemnt

1.2
Not all graphs will start at zero as this
one does. If your data range for the y-
axis is from 6 to 20 newtons, then use a
graph that starts at 5 and ends on 20 or
25 newtons.

1.0 Never force a line to go through the

origin. NEVER!!

Your TA may have other information

that he/she wants on a graph. Then be
sure to include that.
0.8
Force (N)

0.6
Graphs must conform to all the rules
given in lab handbook.

Each graph should be on a separate page.

This graph was inserted into this Word

0.4 document by a simple “copy and paste”
from Excel into Word.

Note that for the first one or two

experiments each semester you will be
required to make your graphs by hand.
After you demonstrate an ability to make
0.2 a graph by hand, then you may use
computer software to make your graphs.

0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

5
Displacement Magnitude (m)

6
 This title is incorrect!
Mass vs. Time Squared Do you know why?
3

y = 13.09x + 0.052
If you use Excel then edit x and y so it looks like this T2
= 13.09M +.052

2.5

y = 13.566x
Dashed curve forced to intercept the origin Do
not force a curve!
Error bars were added to this graph to show that when
the curve was forced to go through the origin it then
did not honor the data collected.
2
Time2

1.5

Do not use the default backgound

color, use white. It can be difficult to
see data points when printed.

1
Add gridlines for both axes, not just the default as in
this plot.

Scale the graph so that the data is spread across the

graph. This graph has too much unused space.

0.5
Since there are two graphs - each is worth 5 points.
I would give this graph only 2 points out of 5.

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Mass

7
 Restoring Force vs. Displacement
1.6

Force = 2.9541x - 0.0001

1.4

1.2

1.0
Force (N)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10
0.45 0.50

2.5

T2 = 13.09M + 0.052

1.5
(s2)
Time2

0.5

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Mass (kg)

8
 Sample Calculations
1. Displacement: the length that the spring is stretched
x  Displacement  Location with Mass 1 (0.010kg) - Reference Location
x  66.42 102 m  69.55 102 m  3.13 102 m

2. Uncertainty of displacement (∆ l): Propagation of error for addition and subtraction

x = (uncertainty in reference)2 + (uncertainty in location 1)2
x = (0.05 10-2 m )2 + (0.05 10-2m)2
 x = 0.07 10-2m

3. Force on spring from the hanging mass

F  mg
F  (10.0g)(1kg /1000g)(9.81m / s2 )  0.0981 N

4. Standard Error for Average Displacement for 0.9811N force

Standard Error =
 (x -x)
i
2

(N 
1)N
 x = {[(3.13 10-2 m  (3.29 10-2m))2  (3.35 10-2 m  (3.29 10-2m))2
 (3.34 10-2m  (3.29 10-2m))2  (3.35 10-2m  (3.29 10-2m))2 ] /[(4  1)4]}1/ 2
 x = 0.05 102 m

5. Using Hooke’s Law (F = - kx) to find the spring constant

k  F / x
k  0.0981/(3.29 102 )  2.98

6. Spring constant uncertainty: Propagation of error for multiplication and division

 k = k (F/F)2 + (x/x)2
2
 k = 2.98N/m  0.01 0.0981N  + 20.05 10 m
2

   2  = 0.05 N/m
 0.0981N   3.29 10 
m
7. Spring constant from period of oscillation
4 2{m  1/ 3(m )}
load spring
k 2
T
1
 10.19 103 kg ) / 1.392s 
2
k  4(3.14)2 (145 103 kg 
3
k  3.01 N/m

9
8. Spring constant uncertainty: propagation of error for T2
A = nA(T/T) where A= Tn n  2
 T = 2(1.394s)2 (.002s/1.394s)= 0.006 s2

9. Spring constant from the slope from T2 vs. Mload graph

) (2 )2
slope  (2
2
k
k slope
(2  3.14)2
k  3.01N / m
13.09 s2 /kg

10. Spring’s Effective Mass, MES, from the intercept

(2 )2 M
Intercept  ES
M  k  Intercept  /(2 )2
k
ES

M ES
 3.01N/m  0.052s2  /(2  3.14)2  0.0040 kg

11. % difference for spring constant k

Measured Value1 - Measured Value 2
% difference  100%
Measured Value1+Measured Value 2 /
2
2.94N/m - 2.98N/m
% difference  100%  1%
2.94N/m + 2.98N/m /
2

10
 Discussion
(One to three sentences are enough to introduce what was done. The procedure is in the lab
manual. Do not rewrite the procedure. More than that is wasting your time and the lab
instructor’s time.) In part 1, a spring was hung vertically with a mass hanger attached to the
lower end of the spring, and masses from 1g to 140g were added. The downward location of
the spring was measured once it came to rest. (A succinct explanation of the physics principle
used in the experiment.) In this configuration, two equal and opposite forces acted on the
hanging mass: gravity directed downward and the spring’s elastic restoring force directed
upward, in the opposite direction of displacement. Using Hooke’s Law (F = -kx), a spring
constant was calculated for each measurement. (How the result demonstrated a physics
principle.) The spring constants for each value of displacement are the same, within
experimental uncertainty (Table 2), which verifies Hooke’s law. (Only the important result is
provided. Not a list of each and every number on the data sheet. Note that final numerical
values include an estimate of uncertainty.) The average spring constant is 2.94±0.01 N/m.

(Analysis of graph: shape of curve, for a straight line, the meaning of slope and intercept for
your graph.) A graph of force versus the magnitude of displacement resulted in the expected
straight line in the range of forces examined and is consistent with Hooke’s law. The slope
of this line, 2.95 N/m, is the spring constant, which agrees with value found by taking the
average of the calculated spring constant (2.94±0.01 N/m). (You do not have to explain how
they agree if you show the numbers or refer to a Table; but do not write that values agree
without some reference.) The intercept for the best fit straight line intersects close to the
origin, which is also consistent with Hooke’s law.

(Sources of error are offered that are consistent with the experimental results.) The sources
of error in this part of the experiment are due to the precision of the location measurement
using the meter stick and the accuracy of the slotted masses. The meter stick was mounted
vertically and behind the spring. The location was measured relative to the base of the mass
hanger. Effort was made to sight the measurements directly; however, because of the
location of the meter stick it was necessary to view the meter stick at a slight angle.
However, this sighting was required for each measurement, and the displacement was the
difference between the location and the reference. Thus, this systematic error due to parallax
should be minimal. However the random error of measurement precision remains. For
displacements 20 cm or more, the uncertainty of the displacement of the spring is 0.5 % or
less and has little impact on the uncertainty of k; in those cases the 1% uncertainty in the
slotted masses has the greatest contribution to the uncertainty of k. However, for small
displacements the displacement uncertainty has the largest impact on the uncertainty in k.
For example, the 1.0 g mass displaced the spring by -0.0035 ± 0.0002 m, a relative
uncertainty of 6%. (You may offer a suggestion for improving the experiment, but it must
focus on the most prominent error and be consistent with the sources of errors. This is not a
place to “trash” the experiment.) Using a motion sensor to measure distance would increase
the precision for small displacements.

(A brief introduction to part 2.) In Part 2, we determined k dynamically using the period of
an oscillating mass. The time for twenty oscillations was measured for five different masses;
for each mass the period of oscillation was measured three times using different oscillation
amplitudes, as suggested by out lab instructor. (A succinct explanation of the physics
11
principle used in the experiment.) The period of a mass oscillating vertically on a spring
depends on the spring constant and the mass of the oscillating object, but not on the
amplitude of the oscillation. (How the result demonstrated a physics principle.) Our
measurements confirmed that the amplitude of oscillation, within experimental uncertainty,
did not affect period (Table 3),

To reduce the reaction time, we observed the motion and used the rhythm to start and stop
the stopwatch. (How the independent variables affected the dependent variables.) For small
masses, the period of the oscillation is shorter; this is consistent with Eq (2). These shorter
periods for the 55g and 25g masses made accuracy in the timing both critical and difficult.
The measured times for 20 oscillations of the 55g mass are not as consistent as for the other
masses. This was the result of reaction time random error. Two measurements for 20
oscillations of the 25g mass were so different from the other measurements that we made
additional measurements and replaced those data points. There was another complication for
these smaller mass, large amplitude oscillations caused the slotted masses to bounce on the
mass hanger. This meant that we had to use smaller amplitude differences between the large
and small amplitude oscillations for the smaller masses.

(You may need to combine two equations.) Using Eq (3), we found k for the four different
loads added to the spring. The four values of k for the four different masses were in
agreement (Table 3). The average value of k is 2.98±0.02 N/m. (Always include units; 2.98±
0.02 without units would be meaningless.)

(Analysis of graph.) A graph of T2 vs. Mload is a straight line and consistent with the theory
that the period is a function of the effective mass of the spring and the spring constant of the
spring, Eq, (4). (Important results.) The spring constant k from the slope is 3.01 N/m; the
effective mass of the spring MES from the intercept of the best fit line is 4.0g, which is
approximately 40% of the mass of the spring, which is somewhat higher than the fraction
used in Eq. (3).

The sources of error in this part of the experiment are due to the accuracy of the slotted
weights and the accuracy of the time measurements. (There is no need to repeat what you
have already discussed.) As mentioned previously, the reaction time uncertainty is greater
for the smaller loads. However, due to the care that taken in the time measurements and the
fact that 20 different oscillations were measured, the uncertainty in the time measurements
was not as important in this experiment as the uncertainty in the slotted masses. There is
uncertainty (1%) in the mass of the slotted weights. It would have been prudent to have
measured the masses on the triple beam balance so that we would have less uncertainty in the
mass of the oscillating weights; however, we did not make those measurements.

The value of the spring constant found in Part 1 (2.94±0.01 N/m) and Part 2 (2.98± 0.02
N/m) do not agree. (Discuss how results agree using either uncertainty and/or percent
differences.)However, the percent difference between the two values is only 1%. One possible
explanation for the small discrepancy may be that the time measurements were precise, but
not accurate due to a systematic error in the timing. If our time measurements of the twenty
oscillations were low by as little as 0.05s, then the spring constant values would agree

12