12-6-12

Phys&232

Andrew Johnson, Michael Sahlbom, Ariez Othus, Cyrus Lombard

Intro:
Our task for this assignment was to design an experiment to find the coefficient of kinetic
friction between two pieces of wood, one sliding across the other. We decided to use a single piece of
wood cut with a saw in order to make sure that the two pieces used would be identical material. After
much deliberation, we settled on a method using a pulley system to move the block across the larger
piece. An uncertainty budget of five percent was decided to determine whether or not the results would
be acceptable.

Setup:
We had two pieces, one much larger than the other. The larger piece was long and narrow (the
“base”), which we clamped to a table to hold it steady. The smaller piece (the block) we placed on top of
the longer one. We clamped a pulley to the end of the longer piece, attached one end of a string to the
block, ran it over the pulley and attached the other end to a force probe. We used the mass of the force
probe itself to move the block across the base using the pulley. We varied the mass of the block by
placing different mass additions on top of it. After calculating the total mass of the block and mass
additions, we released the block and let the weight of the probe pull the block across the base. We did
this several times with several different masses and measured the force readout from the probe while
the system was in motion. We graphed this data as force vs. mass.

Materials:

 Two boards of the same type, one long and one short
 Wireless force probe
 Pulley
 String
 Various mass
 Scale
 Clamps
 Computer with logger pro
 Tape
Figure 1

Calculcations:

Graph 1
Table of Values

m2 (g) T (N) σT m1(g)

220.3 g 1.246 N .06659 0.100 kg 184.3 g

210.3 g 1.220 N .06680 0.098 kg m (Slope)
200.5 g 1.201 N .06749 0.096 kg 12.86 ± 1.013 N/kg
190.5 g 1.145 N .06300 0.094 kg Correlation
180.5 g 1.107 N .06113 0.091 kg .9848
170.5 g 1.098 N .06892 0.089 kg b (Y-intercept)
160.6 g 1.067 N .07640 0.086 kg .04654 ± .09477 N/kg
μk 0.310907

Equations:

m1a = T – μkmg
m2a = T – μkmg

Linearized Equation

μk =

μk = = 0.31

The coefficient of friction

Uncertainties:

√
Uncertainty in m (Slope)

√
√

Uncertainty in , the coefficient of friction

√ √

Relative uncertainty in , the coefficient of friction

Analysis:

We failed to meet our uncertainty budget of 5% we’d aimed for when starting this lab.
Additional factors that played into the results of our data that we did not account for when developing
this experiment. This experiment was surprisingly volatile to experimental errors and we had to be
extremely careful to be precise in collecting data points. It was also noted that when we used masses
above 220.3 g for m1 the force probe no longer properly indicated tension so we decided not to take
data points in that range after experimenting with the force probe. We were, however able to find the
co-efficient of friction, by increasing the number of samples LoggerPro took per second acquiring the
data points and only collecting values with a σT (standard deviation in tension) less than .8 we gathered
enough reliable data points to graph.

The value we acquired for μk was .31. In our pre-lab we’d calculated that the uncertainty of our
slope needed to be .59 or smaller, however we found that the uncertainty in our slope was 1.013 when
we finally graphed our data. The uncertainty in our coefficient of friction was ± .58 which implies that it
was extraordinarily high, which fits with our relative uncertainty of 1.9. Our b (y-intercept) was .04654 ±
.09477 N/kg, which agrees with our acceptable value for b; 0. If our value for b was dramatically higher
or lower than 0 we would have had to retake the data as it would have implied a systematic error, so
this is one way we checked to make sure our data made sense. Our calculated value for μk did fall within
our expected range of μk’s being between .20 and .35, the range of frictional coefficients among pines in
general rather than one specific kind (as we were unable to identify the kind of wood we work working
with).

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the coefficient of kinetic friction for wood on wood was found to be 0.31 by our
experiment. This is near the accepted value for the coefficient of kinetic friction for wood on wood
which is approximately 0.3. However, the set uncertainty budget of five percent was not met by our
experiment. The uncertainty calculated is a very large number at 0.58, which is greater than the
calculated value of 0.31. The budget for uncertainty at five percent works out to be .02. Our calculated
uncertainty despite not meeting the budget constraints still is within one standard deviation of the
accepted value of 0.3, and as such agrees with it. If we were to try to calculate the coefficient of friction
for wood on wood again, we would consider doing a different experiment such as one that uses a
kinematic equation. We would also want to have more knowledge of the specific types of wood we may
be working with so we would be able to compare the results and make a general analysis of what the
coefficient of kinetic friction would be.