Lab Report Due October 22nd, 2013 Adam Tomasi, Henry Eshbaugh, Kieran Kelliher and Kevin Strohschneider

Introduction

This lab involved using spring scales to drag wood across sandpaper, sandpaper across sandpaper, and brick across sandpaper. This was to test static friction and 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 were moving 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

Wei ght of bloc k

0.06 25N

No sand paper on cardb oard (N) Static Kin etic 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.08 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

With sand paper

No sand paper on brick

Brick and sand paper

Static Kin etic 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Static Kin Static Kineti etic c 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Same as abov e with .5kg weigh t

With .5kg weigh t

Kineti Sta Static Kin c tic etic 1.5 2 2.5 2 1.6 1.45 1.51 1.3 1.4 1.6 1 1.2 1 Aver ages 1.323 6364 1.8 1.8 1.9 2 2 2 2 1.8 2 1.9 3 3 3 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.5 3 2.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.5 2 2 2

Static Kin Static Kineti etic c 2 3.5 3 4 2.5 2 2 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 3 2 3 2.5 2 2.5 2 3.5 1.5 1.5 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4

With 1kg weigh t Static Kin Static Kin etic etic

1 kg

2.3 4 3.5

2.4 4 2.3

6 5 5.5

4.1 4.3 4

Static Kin Static Kineti etic witho c ut sans sand sand paper paper 4.5 6 4.5 5 5 405 5.5 5 4 4.5 4.5 4.5

3.7 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.1

2.5 2.3 3 2.1 2 2.1 2.1

5 5 5 5 5.1 5.1 5

4 4.1 4.1 4.1 4 4.1 3.9

4 4 4.5 4 4.5 4.5 4.5

5.5 6 5.5 6 6 5.5 5

4 4 5 4.5 4 5 5

4.5 4.5 5 4 4 5 4.5

With 200g Static Kin Static Kin etic sand etic san d 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5

With 200 g Static Kin Static Kineti etic with c with sand sand 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

0.5

1.5

1 1

1.5

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).