PhysicsLab1Data

docx

School

Bellevue College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

101

Subject

Physics

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by KidPowerSnake39

Report
Physics 114 4/22/19 Carson R., Karl H., Sierra S., Nona W., Howard W. Coffee Filter Terminal Speed Lab Report Introduction: In this lab our goal is to determine the mathematical relationship between the terminal speed of a falling object, which in our case is a coffee filter, and its mass. We will then compare the functional relationship we obtain with that of another group who has done the same lab. For this lab we define terminal speed as the highest velocity attainable by our coffee filter(s) as they fall through the air. Procedure: To begin with, we obtained a meter stick 2 meters in length with a scale of 0.1 cm and held it upright. However, while the meter stick was 2 meters in length, we didn’t start measuring the time until the coffee filter(s) fell to 1.5 meters. We then started with one coffee filter. Using the meter stick, we held the coffee filter up 2.0 m above the ground and then dropped it. Once it reached 1.5 m we started our stopwatch and once it hit the floor we stopped the stopwatch. We recorded the time, then repeated the process 7 more times for a total of 8 trials for one coffee filter. We then stacked the coffee filters on top of each other to perform the experiment with 2, 3, 4 and 5 coffee filters, again repeating the experiment eight times for each set of coffee filters. Afterwards, we’d done the experiment enough times to estimate the uncertainty of the distance we chose to start from. Finally, we used a triple beam balance to measure the mass of our coffee filters(s). In our case, we gathered 20 coffee filters togethers and took their mass, then divided by 20 to get the mass of one coffee filter.
Note: The diagram for our procedure is on separate sheet of half-paper attached to the Lab Report. Data: The distance we chose for our different stacks of coffee filters to fall from was 1.50m ± 0.05m. Data Table for falling time of different stacks of coffee filters: Number of Coffee Filters 1 2 3 4 5 Falling Time (s) 1.74 1.25 0.96 0.91 0.77 1.78 1.13 1.10 0.90 0.84 1.77 1.24 1.03 0.91 0.82 1.63 1.28 1.08 0.97 0.77 1.66 1.24 0.98 0.93 0.84 1.63 1.12 0.95 0.91 0.79 1.71 1.40 1.09 0.93 0.88 1.68 1.22 0.91 0.93 0.77 Avg. and Avg. Deviations of Falling Time (s) 1.70 ± 0.05 1.24 ± 0.06 1.01 ± 0.06 0.92 ± 0.02 0.81 ± 0.04 Our mass for 20 coffee filters was 21.0g ± 0.2g. By dividing by 20, we determined that the mass of 1 coffee filter was around 1.05g ± 0.01g. Analysis: After weighing 20 coffee filters together, we divided the result by 20 to get the weight of one filter. Then we calculated the masses of every filter pile by multiplying the number of coffee filters in the pile by the mass of one filter. The results are stated in the table below:
Number of Coffee Filters Mass (g) Uncertainty of Mass (g) 1 1.05 0.01 2 2.10 0.02 3 3.15 0.03 4 4.20 0.04 5 5.25 0.05 To calculate the averages of the recorded data, we averaged out the time it took for each pile of coffee filters to fall. Then we took the average deviations between the averages and the data to get the uncertainties of time for each stack of coffee filters. The terminal speed of each stack of coffee filters was calculated by using the formula v= Δ x/ Δ t, where v=speed (m/s), x=distance (m) and t=time (s). This also involved using the propagation rules we learned to compute our uncertainties. In our case, our falling distance was always 1.5m with an uncertainty of 0.05m, so our distance would always equal 1.50m ± 0.05m or 1.50m ± 3.33%. We would then do the same conversion for the times of whatever stack of coffee filters we chose. For example, for our stack of 5 coffee filters, 0.81s ± 0.04s became 0.81s ± 4.91%. We would then add the two percents together and multiply them by the quotient of 1.50m and 0.81s to get a final result of 1.85m/s ± 0.15m/s. The averages and uncertainties for our times and speeds are stated in the table below: Number of Coffee Filters Avg. Falling Time (s) Avg. Uncert. of Time (s) Avg. Speed (m/s) Avg. Uncert. Of Speed (m/s) 1 1.70 0.05 0.88 0.06 2 1.24 0.06 1.2 0.1 3 1.01 0.06 1.48 0.14 4 0.92 0.02 1.63 0.09 5 0.81 0.04 1.85 0.15 The percent error was calculated by using the formula below.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
%error=#experimenl-#theoretical#theoretical100 The theoretical value for the speed of one coffee filter to fall is 0.85 m/s (Doherty, 2000). Therefore, our percent error is 0.88(m/s)-0.85(m/s)0.85(m/s)1003.53% In the first graph (attached), the x-axis represents the mass of the coffee filters. The y-axis represents the speed of each fall. The first graph shows us that as the mass of the coffee filter increases, the terminal speed of the fall increases as well. The second graph shows that the linearized relationship of mass (x) and speed (y) is VXx. Since we were able to linearize our data by square rooting the mass we were able to prove that there is a direct relationship between the speed and the mass of an object, when air resistance is taken into account. Mass and speed are proportional to one another as mass increased so did its velocity. Based off of the theoretical value for the velocity of one coffee filter our experimental value was in agreement but not indistinguishable with that of the theoretical value. This is due to error that could have occured during the experiment such as a tilt in the ruler, timing inaccurately, starting height etc. Conclusion: Our lab was able to find a mathematical relationship between a falling objects terminal speed and its mass, which was shown as v = 0.766m1/2. The letter v meaning speed, m being mass, and the number 0.766 represents the slope of our linearized data. The function found shows that when the mass of the coffee filter is changed the speed is also affected. This is also reflected in our data, since when we added more coffee filters, which increased the mass, the speed at which they fell increased as well. When comparing to another group we found that our functions were
similar. Group two’s mathematical relationship between terminal speed of a falling object and its mass was v = 1.06m1/2. Both our group's found that square rooting our mass would linearize our data, so that means their plotted data must have had a similar curve to ours. Although when comparing uncertainties our equations are in disagreement since their slope does not fall under our slopes uncertainty which is 0.2. We were not able to get an uncertainty from group two so we only have ours to use when deciding weather our equations agree or disagree. The difference between our functions probably means that the change in speed of their raw data must have been greater than ours. So when they calculated the slope it would then come out steeper. On the other hand the difference could be on our end; we might have made an error while recording giving us data that was slower. For example, dropping the coffee filters too close to the yardstick causing them drag against it, which would slow their speed when we were taking measurements. Or possibly the recorder might have started the timer too early a few times which would have reflected in our data as slower falling speeds.