1

Natalie LaRowe, Sapna Prakash, Nick Smith

Mr. Hill

Physics, Period 3

14 November 2016

Discovering Friction Coefficients

Intro: While many people think of the word friction as a blanket term covering all resistance

between two objects, there are many different types that can be affected by many different

factors. This was one of the concepts that the Friction Coefficient lab taught the class. Our group

hypothesized that the static friction coefficient would be higher than the kinetic friction

coefficient, and both coefficients for sandpaper on wood would be higher than each respective

coefficient for wood on wood.

Materials:

String

Pulley attached to wooden plank

Cup

Water

Wooden block, sandpaper on one side

Weights

Balance

Meter Stick

Timer
 2

Procedures: This lab was designed to teach students the real-life effects of many different types

of friction, and the different materials that can influence those effects. The lab involved many

different parts and phases.

Part One: Coefficient of Static Friction

This part of the experiment involved setting up a pulley system that would allow us to measure

friction. We threaded a string through a small pulley on the end of a plank and tied one end to a

cup, and tied the other to a small slab of wood. One side of the slab had sandpaper on it. We

dangled the cup off the side of the table, and filled it with water until the slab began to move. We

repeated this procedure two more times, adding weight to the block each time and recording the

amount of water required to make the block move. Using the formula for static friction, we found

the static friction coefficient. We then repeated the same process with the same block with the

sandpaper side down.

Part Two: Coefficient of Kinetic Friction

Using the same setup, we measured the height h between the bottom of the cup and the ground.

We used a mark on the board as a starting point, and filled the cup with water until it could move

the block with a constant speed. We then measured the time it took for the cup to drop the height

h and using this information, we found the acceleration, the net force, the kinetic friction, and the

kinetic friction coefficient. We then repeated the process with the sandpaper side down.

Going Further: Step Seven

Using the steps provided to us on the Going Further sheet, we found the coefficient of static

friction of the block given the height of the incline and the length of the incline. We raised the

board until our unsecured block began to slip, and then took the averages of the height required
 3

to make the block begin to move. Using this information, we were able to find the static friction

coefficient using our distances and the normal force of the block.

Data:

Table 1a: Coefficient of Static Friction (wood/wood)

Mass of cup m1 (g) Mass of block m2 (g) Static friction coefficient s

55.8 96.7 0.58

94.9 196.7 0.48

144.6 296.7 0.49

Average: 0.52

Table 1b: Coefficient of Static Friction (sandpaper/wood)

Mass of cup m1 (g) Mass of block m2 (g) Static friction coefficient s

78.9 96.7 0.81

176.1 196.7 0.89

239.7 296.7 0.81

Average: 0.84

Table 2: Experimental Constants for Tables 3a and 3b, respectively

Height h (m) Mass of cup m1 (kg) Mass of block m2 (kg) Mass of system M
(kg)

0.1021 0.0531 0.0967 0.1598

0.1021 0.0807 0.0967 0.1774

Table 3a: Coefficient of Kinetic Friction (wood/wood)

Time to drop t Acceleration a Net force Fnet Kinetic friction Kinetic friction
(s) (m/s2) (N) Ff (N) coefficient k

1.03 0.192 0.031 0.489 0.516

 4

1.07 0.178 0.028 0.492 0.519

1.03 0.192 0.031 0.489 0.516

1.03 0.192 0.031 0.489 0.516

1.04 0.189 0.030 0.490 0.517

Average: 0.517

Table 3b: Coefficient of Kinetic Friction (sandpaper/wood)

Time to drop t Acceleration a Net force Fnet Kinetic friction Kinetic friction
(s) (m/s2) (N) Ff (N) coefficient k

1.03 0.192 0.034 0.757 0.799

0.90 0.250 0.044 0.747 0.788

0.90 0.250 0.044 0.747 0.788

0.91 0.247 0.044 0.747 0.788

1.00 0.204 0.036 0.755 0.796

Average: 0.791

Table 4a: Coefficient of Static Friction on an Incline (wood/wood)

Horizontal distance x (cm) Vertical distance y (cm) Static friction coefficient s

60 33.6 0.56

60 32.2 0.54

60 35.3 0.59
Average: 0.56

Table 4b: Coefficient of Static Friction on an Incline (sandpaper/wood)

Horizontal distance x (cm) Vertical distance y (cm) Static friction coefficient s

60 48.8 0.81

60 52.6 0.88

60 51.4 0.86
Average: 0.85
 5

Sample Calculations:

Static Friction Coefficient (Table 1):

Equation:

Sample:

Acceleration (Table 3):

Equation:

Sample:

Net Force (Table 3):

Equation:

Sample:

Force of Kinetic Friction (Table 3);

Equation:

Sample:

Kinetic Friction Coefficient (Table 3):

Equation:

Sample:

Static Friction Coefficient on an Incline (Table 4):

Equation:

Sample:

Post Lab Questions:

Friction Pg. 2:
 6

A. Question: Write a hypothesis about models for static and kinetic friction that your

investigation will test.

Answer: We believe that the static friction coefficient will be higher than the kinetic

friction coefficient, and both coefficients for sandpaper on wood will be higher than each

respective coefficient for wood on wood.

B. Question: Draw a free-body diagram of the friction block. Label all forces that act on it,

including friction.

Answer:

C. Question: Derive an equation for the coefficient of static friction in terms of the weights

of the falling mass and friction block.

Answer:

D. See Table 1.

E. Question: The model for static friction treats s as approximately constant, even as the

mass of the friction block was increased. Analyze this model using your experimental

data of the percentage variation between each trials results.

Answer: After analyzing the model using our experimental data, we found that it was

relatively accurate, as there was a 12% maximum variation between the results.

Friction Pg. 4:
 7

A. Question: Use the equations of motion to derive an equation for the average acceleration

of the friction block and cup in terms of the height h and the time t it takes the cup to fall.

(Let down be the positive direction.) Use your equation to calculate the accelerations in

Table 3.

Answer:

B. Question: Use Newtons second law to determine the net force acting on the total system

(of block plus falling cup) from the mass of the system and the acceleration. Show your

equation below. Use your equation to calculate the net force in Table 3.

Answer:

C. Question: The net force on the system equals the weight of the hanging cup minus the

force of friction. Rewrite this equation to solve for the force of friction: Fnet= m1g - Ff

Answer: Ff= m1g - Fnet

D. Question: The coefficient of friction is the ratio of friction force to normal force of the

block: k= Ff / m2g

Calculate and record the coefficient of kinetic friction for each trial in Table 3.

Answer: See Table 3.

E. Question: Based on your experimental results, critique the models for static and kinetic

friction. Does your data support your hypothesis or not?

 8

Answer: Yes, the static friction coefficient was slightly higher than the kinetic friction

coefficient in all cases, as shown in data tables 1 and 3. Also, both kinetic and static friction

coefficients were higher between sandpaper and wood than between wood and wood.

F. Question: Compare your data to the tabulated values for the coefficients of static and

kinetic friction in sections 5.4 of your text. Using your data, evaluate the precision of the

tabulated coefficients.

Answer: In section 5.4 of the text, the Materials in contact chart shows the wood on

wood tabulated values to be 0.5 for static friction and 0.3 for kinetic friction. Compared to the

wood on wood values in our experiments data tables, which are 0.52 for static friction and 0.51

for kinetic friction, these tabulated values are not extremely precise.

Conclusion/Results:

In conclusion, our hypothesis seemed to be very accurate. Our data showed that the averages for

our static friction constants were consistently higher than our kinetic friction constants. Looking

back at the experiment and using the book as a guide, we can explain this through Newtons First

Law of Motion- an object at rest tends to stay at rest. The energy required to make the block

move was greater than the energy required to keep it moving. The other part of our hypothesis

was correct as well- the sandpaper had much higher friction coefficients than the plain wood did.

In Part One of the lab, our sandpaper coefficient was .84, while our wood coefficient was only

.52. In Part Two of the lab, the kinetic friction coefficient for the sandpaper was .791, versus the

wood coefficient of .517. This can be explained through the fact that sandpaper used was much,

much rougher than the other side of the block, which was well-sanded and smooth. The grains of

sand could snag upon the minute imperfections in the surface of the plank much easier than they

could upon other minute imperfections. Finally, our hypothesis remained true for the piece of
 9

Going Further that we did. Not only did the plank have to be raised higher to move the block

with sandpaper side down, but the sandpaper friction coefficient was .85 to the plain woods .56.

Overall, our hypothesis was proven one hundred percent correct. Static friction coefficients are

higher than kinetic friction coefficients because of Newtons First Law, and sandpaper

coefficients are higher than plain wood coefficients because sandpaper is rougher than wood.