Investigation 1.

10:
Measuring the Coefficients
of Friction
Question:

How do factors such as the motion of an object (stationary or moving), the materials that are in

contact, the mass of the object, and the type of friction present have an impact on the coefficients

of friction.

Hypothesis:

Factors such as the motion of an object, the materials that are in contact, the mass of the object,

and the type of friction present the coefficients of friction in different ways. Increasing the mass

of an object will increase its coefficient of friction. Materials that have rough surfaces will have

higher coefficients of friction, in comparison to objects with smoother surfaces. Coefficients for

static friction must be larger than the coefficient of kinetic friction.

Materials:

 Wooden board

 Meter stick

 Objects to slide along the board

 Masses

 Protractor
Procedure:

PART A

1. The board was used as a ramp in this investigation.

2. The first object was placed near the top of the ramp. The top of the ramp was raised until

when the object just began to slide downwards.

3. This was tried 2-3 times for more accuracy.

4. The best position of the ramp was chosen and the measurements of its rise and run were

recorded under the observation table.

5. Steps 1-4 were repeated for the other objects in the table.

6. The same object was used, but this time the ramp was adjusted until the object began to

move down the ramp with a constant velocity.

7. This was tried a few times for more accuracy.

8. The best position of the ramp was chosen and the measurements of its rise and run were

recorded in the observation table.

9. Steps 6-8 were repeated for the other objects in the table.
PART B

1. Rubber was chosen from the list of 5 materials along with two masses. One was 50 grams

and the other one was 100 grams.

2. The 50 grams mass was added on the rubber. The measurements of the rise and run were

recorded for static and kinetic friction.

3. Step 2 was repeated with the only exception that a 100 grams mass was added on the

rubber.

4. A cart was rolled down the board. It's rise and run measurements were recorded for static

and kinetic friction.

5. Step 4 was repeated, but this time a mass of 100 grams was added to the cart.
Analysis:

The countertop material had the greatest coefficient for kinetic and static friction out of the first

five materials on the table. Out of the 5 material that had the least amount of friction with the

board was the steel. The coefficients of static friction are larger than the coefficients of kinetic

friction, which is what table 5.1 demonstrates, but in this investigation, the coefficients of kinetic

friction were larger than those of static friction. For example, steel on wood had a kinetic

coefficient of 0.25 and 0.45 for static as per the table, but this investigation had the coefficient

0.32 for kinetic and 0.26 for static. Although the coefficients for kinetic friction are close, the

coefficients for static are not. Furthermore, the coefficients for static friction are larger than

kinetic in the table and this specific example from the table. Increasing the mass of the object did

have an effect on the coefficients of static and kinetic friction. For the 9th object, a cart was used

and was left to slide down the board and its static and kinetic friction was recorded in the table,

using the rise and run (slope). For number 10, the same cart was left to slide down the board, but

this time, with a mass of 100 grams in it. Due to the addition of mass, the coefficients of static

and kinetic friction increased. Something similar was done with the list of five materials. One

material, rubber, was chosen to slide down the same board, but with a mass of 50 grams and then

100 grams. The material's static and kinetic friction was recorded with a mass of 50 grams and

then a mass 0f 100 grams.

Diagrams

1. Before the object slides down:

2. As it is sliding down:
Evaluation: Sources of Error and Conclusion

There were a few possible sources of errors in this investigation, which may have contributed to

the inaccuracy in some of the results. One possible source of error is the measurement(s) of the

rise and run (slope) of the board. The run (base) of the board was divided by the rise (height) to

find the kinetic or static coefficients, which makes the measurements of the rise and run very

significant to the results of the investigation. Therefore, inaccurate measurements are one of the

possible sources of errors; if they are measured inaccurately, they will have an impact on the

coefficients. Another possible source of error is the positioning of the board; it will impact the

rise and run, which will then impact the coefficients. There is a possibility that the position of the

board that was chosen, may be inaccurate. That will impact the measurements of the rise and run,

which will lead to inaccurate coefficients. In this example, the percentage error is approximately

42 percent, which proves that the inaccurate positioning and measurements of the board made a

huge impact on the coefficients of static and kinetic friction.

Percentage or Error: Steel board (Static)

Percentage error = (Approximate Value – Exact Value/Exact Value) (100)
= (0.26-0.45/0.45) (100)
= 42.2 %
Conclusion:

The overall purpose of the investigation was met, as it was clear which factors impact the

coefficients of static and kinetic friction in what way. According to the results, mass, materials in

contact and the type of motion impact the coefficient of static and kinetic friction in different

ways. However, there were a few sources of errors, which can be improved and taken better care

of next time. For more accuracy in the next investigation, multiple trials must be held in order to

get the most accurate position of the board. Along with that, the board must be held still next

time for accurate slope measurements. Improving these sources of errors will give more accurate

measurements for the rise and run, which will result in accurate kinetic and static coefficients.
 Observation Table: Sample Data Table
Object Static Kinetic
Rise Run Coefficient of Rise Run Coefficient of
static friction kinetic friction
1. Countertop 0.13m 0.26m 0.48 0.16m 0.28m 0.56

2. Steel 0.08m 0.29m 0.26 0.09m 0.29m 0.32

3. Cork 0.09m 0.29m 0.32 0.01m 0.29m 0.34

4. Sandpaper 0.11m 0.29m 0.38 0.28m 0.28m 0.45

5. Rubber 0.12m 0.28m 0.42 0.24m 0.24m 0.49

6. Wood (flip one of the 0.08m 0.30m 0.26 0.29m 0.29m 0.39
objects 1-5)

7. Object 1-5 (your 0.13m 0.27m 0.47 0.29m 0.29m 0.38

choice) with added
mass
8. Object 1-5 (your 0.12m 0.28m 0.43 0.29m 0.29m 0.38
choice) with added
mass.
9. Cart 0.01m 0.30m 0.03 0.30m 0.30m 0.12

10. Cart with added mass 0.01m 0.30m 0.04 0.30m 0.30m 0.09