Terminal Velocity Lab

Maitland McMillen
Lab Partners: Kate Sutter,
Larina Good, Katelyn Kister

Purpose/ Objectives:
1.
2.
3.
4.

To use video analysis to analyze the motion of falling objects.

Compare the terminal velocity of a playground ball to that of a coffee filter.
Determine the relationship terminal velocity has to mass.
Determine the relationship terminal velocity has to surface area.
Background Information:

In this lab, the terminal velocity is being tested in the different variations of coffee
filters. Up to ten coffee filters are tested as well as folding a single filter up to three times.
A common playground ball is also tested to determine the terminal velocity. The
hypothesis of the terminal velocity increasing by a constant when each filter is added is
being experimentally tested.
Equipment and Set Up:

Video File
Logger Pro
HD Video Camera
Playground Ball
Coffee Filters
Meter Stick

Procedure: The camera was set up on the tripod and a meter stick was set up
against the background. A single coffee filter was dropped and recorded. For
the next trial two coffee filters were stacked together and dropped at the
same height. This was also done for four, six, eight, and ten coffee filters. All
of these trials were recorded. These trails were different because the mass of
the coffee filters changed without changing the surface area. The more coffee
filters you have the heavier they are and they fall faster. Then a single coffee
filter was folded in half and dropped from the same height as the previous
trials. Then it was folded again, for a total of two folds, and dropped. The
coffee filter was then folded for a third time. It was dropped from the same
height as the other filters. These drops were all recorded. The difference in
each trial was the decreasing amount if surface area. Each trial the mass
stayed the same but the surface area decreased. Finally a playground ball
was dropped from the same height as the other trials and recorded. The

difference in this trial was an increase in mass and surface area compared to
the coffee filters.
Graphs :
1 Filter:

1 Fold:

10 filters

2 filters:

4 Filters:

6 Filters:

8 Filters:

2 Fold:

3 folds:

Ball:

Data Table:

Different Objects
Singe Coffee Filter

Playground Ball

Terminal Velocity = _1.017_m/s__________

Terminal Velocity = __5.663_m/s_______

Different Masses
# of Coffee
Filters

Terminal Velocity

-1.378m/s

-1.792m/s

-2.199m/s

-2.417m/s

10

-2.836m/s

Different Surface Areas

# of Folds of
Coffee Filter

Terminal Velocity

-1.017m/s

-1.010m/s

-1.389m/s

-1.751m/s

Error Analysis:

The data collected had an amount of percent error because of certain factors
during the experiment. Even though a mark on the wall was used to drop the
filters and ball from each time, the slight change could have affected the outcome.
Also, while using Logger Pro, when defining the start and end points, the quality
of the video was not precise enough to define the exact points.
Questions:
1. The position vs. time graph for the coffee filters are different from the graph of the
playground ball because the ball has a rounder fall curve and the dots on the graph are spaced

out more. This is because the bigger mass of the ball is not affected as easily by air resistance
as the coffee filters are.
2. The velocity graphs of the ball and coffee filters also differ because of mass and air
resistance. The ball has a straight curve of velocity where the coffee filters velocities are
scattered according the path they took in falling. The coffee filters would float on the air or dive
making their dots on the graph more spaced out. The ball was not affected as much by the air.
3. The coffee filters reached a terminal velocity quickly, and the ball did not have enough
time to reach a terminal velocity. The graph for the ball shows a beginning of leveling out, but it
was stopped before it could. The coffee filter's velocity evened out and stayed in a horizontal
range on the graph.
4. The greater the surface area, the more air resistance it has. This means there are more
air particles preventing the filter to move freely. This causes the terminal velocity to be lower
since it can't reach higher speed with the amount of air resistance.
5. The mass of the object does have an effect on terminal velocity. The lighter the object,
the quicker it reaches terminal velocity. THis is because the air resistance pushing against the
falling object equals out the force of gravity on the object, thus ending acceleration. Since the
force of gravity on higher masses is greater, it takes longer for the equilibrium of terminal
velocity to occur.

6. Free Body Diagrams

The acceleration graph of an object that is approaching terminal velocity would

show the acceleration slowing down. This is because the air resistance on the outside
force is reacting on the object to slow it down. Soon the forces of gravity and air
resistance become equal, producing zero net force. Because there is zero net force, or
the object is at equilibrium, there is no acceleration. Therefore, at terminal velocity there
would be no acceleration.

Conclusion:
The hypothesis is true that the terminal velocity changes by a constant each time
an identical filter is added (with the same mass and surface area). The terminal velocity
increases by about 0.4 m/s when each coffee filter is added. Up to ten coffee filters are
recorded. Then, a single filter is folded up to three times. The decrease in surface area
also increases the terminal velocity by about 0.4 m/s. Due to the playground balls mass it
has a much higher terminal velocity.