Unit 2 Lab Report

8/13/2019 Unit 2 Lab Report

1/6

Lab Report

Due October 22nd, 2013

Adam Tomasi, Henry Eshbaugh, Kieran Kelliher and Kevin Strohschneider


2/6

Introduction

This lab involved using spring scales to drag wood across sandpaper, sandpaper

across sandpaper, and brick across sandpaper. This was to test static frictionand

kinetic friction. Static friction here was friction between two objects that were not

moving relative to each other. Kinetic friction here was friction between two objects that

weremoving relative to each other. One would test static friction by seeing how hard

they could pull on the wooden block and/or brick until it finally moved (measured in

newtons), and test kinetic friction by simply pulling the object across different surfaces.

.5 kg, 1 kg, and 200 kg weights were added on top of the brick and wood. The hypotheses

were that the brick would have the most kinetic friction on any surface, and that there

with either the wood or brick, kinetic friction would be higher than static friction, and

the difference would become more apparent the heavier the weight. The results were the

following:

- Brick on sandpaper and other surfaces had the most kinetic friction.- With a 1 kg weight, there was comparatively more kinetic friction than static

friction.

- With 200 kg, static friction was higher than kinetic friction.

Observation and Analysis


3/6

Weightofblock

Nosandpaperoncardboard(N)

Withsandpaper

Nosandpaperonbrick

Brickandsandpaper

0.0625N

Static Kinetic

Static Kinetic

Static Kinetic

Static Kinetic

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0

0.11 0.12

0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0

0.12 0.11

0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0

0.08 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0

0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0

Sameasabove with.5kgweight

With.5kgweight


4/6

Kinetic

Static

Static Kinetic

Static Kinetic

Static Kinetic

1.5 2 2.5 2 2 3.5 3 4

1.6 1.8 3 2 2.5 2.5 2 3

1.45 1.8 3 2.5 2 2 2.5 4

1.51 1.9 2.5 2.5 2 2.5 2 3

1.3 2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2 3.5 3

1.4 2 2.2 2.5 3 2.5 1.5 3

1.6 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 1.5 4

1 2 3 2 2.5 2 2 4

1.2 1.8 2.5 2 2 3 2 3

1 2 2 2 2 2.5 2 4

Averages

1.3236364

1.93

With1kgweight

1 kg

Static Kinetic

Static Kinetic

Static Kinetic

Staticwithoutsandpaper

Kineticsanssandpaper

2.3 2.4 6 4.1 4.5 6 4.5 5

4 4 5 4.3 5 5.5 4 4.5

3.5 2.3 5.5 4 405 5 4.5 4.5


5/6

3.7 2.5 5 4 4 5.5 4 4.5

3.1 2.3 5 4.1 4 6 4 4.5

3.1 3 5 4.1 4.5 5.5 5 5

3.2 2.1 5 4.1 4 6 4.5 4

3.3 2 5.1 4 4.5 6 4 4

3.4 2.1 5.1 4.1 4.5 5.5 5 5

3.1 2.1 5 3.9 4.5 5 5 4.5

With200g

With200 g

Static Kinetic

Staticsand

Kineticsan

d

Static Kinetic

Staticwithsand

Kinetic withsand

1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5

1 0.5 1 1.5 1 1 1 1.5

1 0.5 1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5

1 0.5 1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5

1 0.5 1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5

1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1.5

1 0.5 1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5

1 0.5 1 1 1.5 1 1 1.5

1 0.5 1 1.5 1 1 1 1.5


6/6

Conclusions

The results were consistent with the first hypothesis, that the brick would have

more kinetic friction than wood on any surface. With no weight, the kinetic friction

was about the same, but with a .5 kg weight, kinetic friction for the brick was as high

as 4, a maximum that wood didnt reach. With a 1 kg weight, it got to as high as 4.5

and 5, while with wood it only got as high as 4.1. With a 200 kg weight, it was

consistently either 1 or 1.5, while with wood it was between .5 and 1.5. However, were

the second hypothesis was partly incorrect, that with word or brick, regardless of the

weight, kinetic friction would be ahead of static friction. Without sandpaper, static

friction was always higher (1.5 versus .5 and 1.5 versus 1), but with sandpaper kinetic

friction was always higher (1.5 versus 1).

1 0.5 1 1.5 1 1 1 1.5

Unit 2 Lab Report

Documents

Transcript of Unit 2 Lab Report