• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Determination of Coefficient of Friction

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

DETERMINATION OF THE COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION

Aim:

  1. To determine µ kinetic between a wooden block and a wooden plane;
  2. To determine µ static between a wooden block and a wooden plane.

Equipment:

  1. Wooden block;
  2. Wooden plane;
  3. Spring scale;
  4. Meter rule;
  5. Weights.

There are two parts of my investigation, so I will precede them separately.

Determination of µ kinetic between a wooden block and a wooden plane

image00.jpg

This is the table which I filled during my determination:

RAW DATA

DATA PROCESSING

Weight of the block/N; ±0.05N

Number of weights added

Friction force/N; ±0.1N

Normal force/N; ±0.05N

µ kinetic; ±0.2

0.60

0

0.15

0.60

0.2

1

0.30

1.60

2

0.50

2.60

3

0.65

3.60

4

0.75

4.60

Recording raw data:

First of all, I prepare my working place and start my determination. All my measurements are recorded to the table above. For more accurate results of µ kinetic I recorded data with 5 different weights.

The smallest graduation of the spring scale is 0.1 N. According to this, the absolute uncertainty of weight of the block is ±0.05 N.  I do not add additional uncertainty as I did not encounter any further difficulties in weight measurement.

I used weights provided by my teacher. Those weights were precisely 1 N each. In the table I only provide the number of them and therefore I take it without uncertainty.

Once again the smallest graduation of the spring scale is 0.

...read more.

Middle

Now the biggest deviation from the mean should be taken as the absolute uncertainty of the µ kinetic. The biggest deviation is 0.25 – 0.19468 = 0.05532 ≈ 0.06. I would use this absolute uncertainty if there is no bigger uncertainty when calculated for each situation. Now I will calculate the absolute uncertainty of my µ kinetic measurements for each situation. To do that, I will have to add relative uncertainties by using this formula:

image01.png

When I added 0 weights, image02.pngimage02.png -> ∆µ = 0.1875 ≈ 0.2;

When I added 1 weight, ∆µ = 0.0684 ≈ 0.07;

When I added 2 weights, ∆µ = 0.0421 ≈ 0.04;

When I added 3 weights, ∆µ = 0.0303 ≈ 0.03;

When I added 4 weights, ∆µ = 0.0235 ≈ 0.02;

Obviously, the biggest uncertainty is 0.2. Therefore:

µkinetic ± ∆µkinetic = 0.2 ± 0.2

Now I can compare my result with literature’s. In Giancoli Physics page 97 it is provided that the coefficient of kinetic friction of wood on wood is equal to 0.2. This is exactly the same value as I have counted. The percentage discrepancy is equal to 0%. However, the percentage uncertainty is equal to 100%. I will discuss these finding in conclusion and evaluation part after the determination of static friction coefficient.

Determination of µ static between a wooden block and a wooden plane

image03.jpg


This is the table which I filled during this determination:

RAW DATA

DATA PROCESSING

Length of the plane/cm; ±0.1 cm

Number of weights attached

Height just before starting to move/cm; ±0.3 cm

Angle α°, ±0.4°

µ static, ±0.06

1st reading

2nd reading

3rd reading

Mean

51.3

0

13.9

13.4

14.0

13.8

15.6

0.22

1

11.2

12.6

11.9

11.9

13.4

2

10.5

10.0

10.9

10.5

11.8

3

10.5

9.9

9.9

10.1

11.4

4

9.2

8.9

8.9

9.0

10.1

Recording raw data:

...read more.

Conclusion

Furthermore, some systematic errors have occurred as I had to do a lot of calculations and roundings during the data processing part. Also, the instruments may have been badly calibrated and this could have affected my determination. However, systematic errors are not so important because even if they even were encountered, they were very small. Another thing is with random errors as they were really significant because the percentage uncertainty shows quite high result.

I could provide several suggestions to improve the determination. First of all, I would rather use bigger and longer plane and bigger block. Then, as I would still use the same equipment with same absolute uncertainties, the percentage uncertainty would be reduced significantly. The uncertainty would be less important and more accurate results would come. Also, human factor uncertainty would be reduced because it would be easier to pull uniformly or to lift the plane. However, my suggestions would only lesser the uncertainties, but they would not totally cancel them.

...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate Physics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate Physics essays

  1. physics lab report. Aim To determine the coefficient of static ...

    This caused error in the experiment because the wooden (block + masses) might have started moving when a mass between 0g and 10g was added to the hanging masses. 3. Human parallax error in taking mass measurements: the scale of the triple beam balance might not have been viewed at right angles.

  2. Research question: Part A : What is the static friction coefficient of ...

    Hypothesis: Part A : The greater the coefficient, the rougher the surfaces. The coefficients are different between different surfaces. This is due to the fact that if the object is having bigger angle of inclination, it shows that the coefficient is bigger.

  1. Coefficient of Static and Kinetic Friction Phys 10 IB LAb

    In all of the 5 different trials, both of the coefficients stayed at around the same friction which was ?0.4�0.2 for static friction and 0.32�0.3 for kinetic friction. The leads to the conclusion that the mass of the object does not affect it's coefficients as long as it is on a level surface.

  2. Finding the Spring Constant

    � (28.701) (x 100)] =9.5 % (From the looks of the %error, we can conclude that there are errors and omissions). The difference between the uncertainties is: 4.049 - 4.007 which is � 0.042. This shows that the difference between the actual values and uncertainties between the theoretical value (taken from the book)

  1. Centripetal Force

    0.744 1.344086 1.806567 0.399702 -0.027055 0.0007320 7.00 0.700 1.428571 2.040816 0.451529 0.024772 0.0006136 7.32 0.732 1.366120 1.866284 0.412914 -0.013843 0.0001916 6.35 0.635 1.574803 2.480005 0.548700 0.121943

  2. The Determination of an Equilibrium Constant.

    As my results can prove, the precision was very good as my results were close together, but my value of Kc was almost 30% of the data book value of 4.0 for this reaction. As a class, all the solutions should have produced the same Kc value, therefore having the

  1. Investigating the friction created on different surfaces. Factors that affect range of catapult

    The launcher was steadily released so that the box could be pushed to slide on the cement floor. 6. Then the distance traveled by the box was marked by a tape. The closest back tip of the box was used as the mark of the distance travelled by the box.

  2. HL Physics Revision Notes

    V=IR If current and potential difference are proportional then the device is ohmic. If they are not like in a filament lamp they are non-ohmic. Power Dissipation: Power = Energy difference/time = E/t E/t = VI. P=VI Since V = IR then P=I2R and V2/R 5.2: Electric Currents: Electromotive force (emf)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work