Ryan Job

Partner: Hunter Cameron

Static and Kinetic Friction and Air Resistance

Objective: The objective of this lab is to show how normal force and different surfaces affect the static
and kinetic frictions of an object. This lab also shows how normal force affects drag force and terminal
velocity.
Method/Setup: For the first part of the lab, a block of wood with sand paper on one side was attached
to a force sensor using a piece of string. While the force sensor is recording, the block of wood was then
dragged across the wood table with the wood side facing towards the table. This is done three times,
then mass was added and this was done three more times. The masses added were 100g, 200g, 400g,
and 600g, resulting in 15 trials (three trials for each of the five weights, including 0g). Then this whole
process was repeated, only the sandpaper side was dragged across a sandpaper surface.

For the second part of this lab, a coffee filter was held under a motion detector. With the motion
detector recording, the coffee filter was dropped. The graph of the position of the filter was not allowed
to have any major jumps, so if there were any, another trial would have to be taken until the graph did
not have any jumps. Then another coffee filter was added and this process repeated until five coffee
filters were dropped at once.
Motion Detector

Computer

Ryan Job

Partner: Hunter Cameron

Data: The first table is the results of finding the peak static friction of the block for wood on wood and
sandpaper on sandpaper for each trial and the average for the mass. The second table is the results of
finding the kinetic friction of the block for the same scenarios as the first table. The third table is the
results of finding the terminal velocity and the terminal velocity squared for the number of coffee filters
dropped.
Total
Mass (kg)

Normal
Force (N)

0.2661
0.3661
0.4661
0.6661
0.8661

2.610
3.591
4.572
6.534
8.496

Total
Mass (kg)

Normal
Force (N)

0.2661
0.3661
0.4661
0.6661
0.8661

2.610
3.591
4.572
6.534
8.496

Number of
Filters
1
2
3
4
5

Peak Static Friction Wood-Table

Trial 1
0.8734
1.144
1.366
2.135
2.558

Trial 2
1.033
1.098
1.719
2.103
2.520

Trial 3
1.073
1.054
1.661
2.010
2.636

Average
Peak Static
Friction
W-T (N)

0.9931
1.099
1.582
2.083
2.571

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Average
Kinetic
Friction
W-T (N)

0.6751
0.8122
1.198
1.445
1.955

0.6531
0.8638
1.219
1.598
1.876

0.6692
0.8716
1.230
1.671
2.041

0.6658
0.8492
1.216
1.571
1.957

Kinetic Friction Wood-Table

Terminal Velocity
VT (m/s)
1.103
1.478
1.896
1.921
2.061

Peak Static Friction Sand-Sand

Trial 1
1.582
1.746
2.347
2.899
4.089

Trial 2
1.278
1.726
2.122
3.411
5.347

Trial 3
1.331
1.668
2.244
2.997
4.224

Kinetic Friction Sand-Sand

Trial 1
1.228
1.524
1.942
2.532
3.273

Trial 2
1.131
1.501
1.884
2.485
3.403

Trial 3
1.171
1.481
1.845
2.533
3.426

Average
Peak Static
Friction
S-S (N)

1.397
1.713
2.238
3.102
4.552
Average
Kinetic
Friction
S-S (N)

1.177
1.502
1.890
2.517
3.367

(Terminal Velocity)2
VT2(m2/s2)
1.217
2.184
3.595
3.690
4.278

Graph Set 1 is the average peak static friction vs. normal force for both wood on wood (top) and
sandpaper on sandpaper (bottom). Graph Set 2 shows the average kinetic friction vs. normal force for
both wood on wood (top) and sandpaper on sandpaper (bottom). Graph Set 3 shows terminal velocity
vs. number of coffee filters (top) and terminal velocity squared vs. number of coffee filters (bottom).
Example Graph 1 shows an example of a force vs. time graph generated in part one of this lab. Example
Graph 2 shows an example of a position vs. time graph generated in part two of this lab.

Ryan Job

Partner: Hunter Cameron

Graph Set 1

Normal Force (N)

Normal Force (N)

Graph Set 3

Number of Filters

Number of Filters

Graph Set 2

Ryan Job

Partner: Hunter Cameron

Example Graph 1

Example Graph 2

Calculations/Results: The normal force of the wood block is the mass times the force of gravity (9.81
m/s2).The value of the first major spike of the graph for a given trial in part one of this lab is the peak
static friction for the trial. The mean value of the following data points is the kinetic friction for the trial.
The average values for peak static friction and kinetic friction for a given mass is calculated by adding up
all three values and dividing the result by three (since there are three values).
The terminal velocity of a given trial in part two of the lab is the slope of a linear fit line of the part of the
graph after there is acceleration and before the filter(s) hit(s) the ground. The terminal velocity squared
is calculated by squaring the terminal velocity.
Conclusion: In part one of this lab, the linear models comparing average peak static friction and normal
force for both surfaces is fairly linear. The linear model comparing average kinetic friction and normal
force for both surfaces is also fairly linear. This shows that there is a linear relationship between the
two. Since both of the axes have the same unit of measurement (N), the slope has no unit of
measurement, making it simply a coefficient.
The coefficient of static friction is higher than the coefficient of kinetic friction in all trials, suggesting
that it takes more energy to get an object moving than it does to keep it moving, although this may not
always be the case.
In part two of the lab, the terminal velocity vs. number of filters appears to be parabolic, so squaring the
terminal velocity results in a linear graph, which is shown by the correlation coefficients of the two
linear models. Since increasing the number of filters increases the total mass, and thus the normal force,
the relationship between terminal velocity squared is linear.