Shawn Hong

Coffee Filter Lab

Purpose: The purpose of this lab was to determine the relation between weight and terminal velocity, to determine whether air resistance was related to vn for some n and if so to determine n, and lastly, determine the drag coefficient Cd. Hypothesis: I predict that when the mass of the filters increase, the terminal velocity will also increase. I also predict that the air resistance will be proportional to v2 , with n approximately 2. The air resistance will vary depending on the other variables such as the cross-sectional area of the filters, the density of the air, and the drag coefficient.

Procedure: 1. Determine the radius of two, four, six, and eight coffee filters by measuring the diameter several times and dividing it by two. 2. Find the mass of two, four, six, and eight coffee filters by massing one coffee filter on a balance and multiplying the mass by the appropriate multiplier. 3. Set up data studio on the computer and set the motion sensor off the ground with the stand holding up the actual sensor a little bit off the ground (about 10cm). 4. Drop two coffee filters, then four, then six, then eight about 2 meters off the ground for about five times each time to get the most accurate data. 5. With data studio, use the velocity graph to find the terminal velocity of each of the trials. Then average those trials. 6. If the filter flutters away from the motion sensor, repeat the trial until the correct terminal velocity is similar to the other trials. Data: Number of Filters 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 Mass Error (m/s) Terminal Velocity (m/s) (g) 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.59 1.9 1.43 1.9 1.53 3.8 2.13 3.8 2.13 3.8 2.2 3.8 2.2 3.8 2.07 5.7 2.34

.014 .014 .006 .002 .006 .019 .013 .0032 .073 .043 .023

Shawn Hong .01 .02 .004 .004 .013 .034 .063 .001 .005

6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8

5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6

2.39 2.47 2.4 2.4 2.85 2.7 2.63 2.77 2.69

Mass(g) 1.9 3.8 5.7 7.6

Avg. Velocity(m/s) 1.55 2.146 2.4 2.728

Error(m/s) .013 .005 .045 .031

Calculations:

Shawn Hong

Questions: 1) The value of n is 2.495. I found it by finding the slope of the best fit line of the natural log of the velocity vs. the natural log of the mass graph. The slope was .4008 and the inverse of that is 2.495. 2) The error of the object s n value is +/- .0453 3) The drag coefficient is 1.032 4) The error of the drag coefficient is +/- .305 5) A more streamlined object would have a lower value of Cd. Since more streamlined would make the object more aerodynamic, therefore less contact with the air. Also, in the equation FDrag= 1/2 Cd A vn the Cd is proportional to the cross-sectional area; therefore, when the cross-sectional area decreases, the drag coefficient should decrease. Error Analysis: One source of error we found was that the pressure of the room and the temperature varied during the trials which would cause the air density to fluctuate, creating a different drag coefficient. We assumed the air density to be about 1.2 Kg/m3 , but we knew that was the case since the room had different temperatures and pressures. We could correct this error by carefully watching the temperature and the air pressure of the room. We could control the heat of the experimental area by using regulated heat or a pressurized chamber to control the pressure. Another of source of error we had was that the motion sensor was not necessarily set at the highest frequency to achieve the most accurate data. This caused a changeability of the terminal velocity, changing the n value. If we had set it higher, the accuracy would be better, and we could gather more feasible terminal velocities. One final source of error we found was that the coffee filter was not always dropped in a perfect straight line since a slight air current in the room could have veered the coffee filter slightly sideways, causing the motion sensor to gather a slower velocity than the actual terminal velocity. Conclusion: I predicted that when the mass of the filters increase, the terminal velocity will also increase. I also hypothesized that the air resistance will be proportional to v2 , with n approximately 2. Both hypotheses were proved correct since more coffee filters created a faster terminal velocity and more air resistance would create a slower velocity. Therefore, the mass and velocity are directly proportional, and the air resistance and the velocity are inversely proportional. We found n by finding the slope of the graph of the natural log of velocity vs. the natural log of mass and then taking the inverse of that slope. Our slope was approximately .4008 and our n value was 2.495. We knew that the actual n value was supposed to be 2, so we concluded that our errors must of caused this slight variant of data. This lab helped me understand how the cross-sectional area, air density, velocity, and drag coefficient affected the force of drag, affecting an object s fall.

Shawn Hong

Data for graph:

LN(Mass(kg)) LN(Velocity(m/s)) -6.2659014 0.438254931 -5.5727542 0.763605644 -5.1672891 0.875468737 -4.8796070 1.00356874