align="justify"> uncertainty=0,01? 100%=1,0%.
must say that the calculation does not account for the gradients of the error for the spring constant of spring, total mass of load and the extension of spring.of percentage uncertainty in this value of the acceleration due to gravity using uncertainty for the spring constant of spring, total mass of load and the extension of spring:
uncertainty: 7% + 0,6% + 1,0%=7,6% 8%.
the absolute uncertainty of the acceleration due to gravity:
? g=9,95 x 0,08=0,796 0,80 Nkg - 1
the experimental value and absolute uncertainty acceleration due to gravity:
exp ±? g? (9,95 ± 0,80) Nkg - 1
I believe that the result is more correct to assess of the acceleration due to gravity.
Concluding and Evaluation:
My graphs support the theory because it is a straight line, but which not passes through the origin. This suggests a systematic experimental error. I believe that the systematic error due to the fact that the spring, first, already had initial stretching. This systematic error is clearly visible on Fig.4.we look at the Fig.2, we can say that the systematic error and with the further due to the fact that we did not measure the period of oscillation of the spring holder only., according to equation (3) y-intercept is m. So can be determined from the graph (Fig.2) the mass of the spring itself:
, 029 =;== 0,026? (30 ± 1) g.
error observed in the graph (Fig.2), since the best-fit line does not pass all the errors bars. Clearly, the source of greatest error in the experiment is in the measurement of the period. So, the error total mass of load is 0,6%, extension is 1,0%, whereas the error square period of oscillation to 4,0% .calculation results are given for in the spring constant of spring is 7,0% and percentage uncertainty in this experimental value of the acceleration due to gravity is 8,0% .different points on Earth, objects fall with acceleration between 9.78 and 9.82 ms - 2 with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 ms - 2 .conclusion the experimental range is from 9,15 Nkg - 1 to 10.75 Nkg - 1 and this range includes the accepted value.can assume that it was the influence of oscillation in air resistance, since the form of load was flat. And may have been loss of energy and oscillation were slightly, but damped. Besides, possibly, human error in the measurement was an appropriate amount of time and oscillation.is also a reliance on other data that is assumed rather than measured such as the constant depending on the spring itself and hence giving inaccurate readings.graphs show that significant anomalies and emissions during the experiment are not received.
Improving
The slight but noticeable scatter of data about the best straight-line could be improved by taking more readings. For example, use a fractional mass of load. You can also add measurements in reverse order, that is, to reduce the mass of the load., Repeated readings there is a possibility that the spring will have a residual extension.it is possible to propose to use in this experiment, a spring with a large spring constant in order to more reduce damping. And use load which will have a more streamlined shape, in order to reduce the influence of air resistance.
