# Determination of Coefficient of Friction

Data processing: When determining the kinetic chaffing coefficient the mg is usually equal to the typical force. In each situation I add the excess weight of the block together with weight of the quantity of weights added. Because my used weights were very precise and provided by my teacher I do not include uncertainty to their weights. These people were 1N each. Consequently, I leave the total uncertainty of the typical force the same as the weight of the stop as the same uncertainness remains.? Normal force sama dengan? weight of the block out +? weights ->? regular force =? weight regarding the block + zero.

For each situation with different amount of weights, the normal push differs as well. We calculated the standard force in this way: Normal force = weight of typically the block + n times weight of one weight -> Normal force sama dengan 0. 60 + 1n, where n is typically the number of weights extra. First of all I actually measured the duration of the wood plane. I used the meter rule which got a smallest graduation of 0. 1 cm. Therefore, I should take the particular absolute uncertainty of length measurement as 0. 05cm, but I decided in order to take it as 0. 1cm due to the fact that wooden plane could not have already been in a perfect square shape and therefore size at different positions could be different.

I decided to investigate plus to check the stationary coefficient of friction in different situations, so I actually include the number associated with weights attached to the particular wooden block. I provide them as integer numbers. Further I collected organic data in the height only before which the wood block started to shift. I collected these psychic readings with a meter rule which usually smallest graduation was 0. 1cm and therefore typically the absolute uncertainty of level measurements should be zero. 05cm but I made the decision for taking the absolute doubt as 0. 3cm due to the fact that wooden plane was elevated by a human in addition to therefore it was difficult to identify the proper height. However the largest deviation from the suggest is 0. 06, therefore this number will end up being taken as the total uncertainty.

Right now I can compare the result with literature’ s. In Giancoli Physics page 97 it really is provided of which the coefficient of static friction of wood upon wood is comparable to zero. 4. The percentage difference is equal to 45%. Also, the percentage doubt is comparable to 27%. I will discuss these getting in conclusion and analysis part. Conclusion and analysis: The first part associated with my determination, where We had to find the kinetic coefficient was carried out more precisely, but not more accurately.

The percentage discrepancy compared with the literature’ s has been 0% what is a new great achievement, but however the percentage uncertainty has been 100%. In the further part discrepancy was 45% and percentage uncertainty had been 27%. The percentage uncertainty of the static friction agent is fairly good, but still the result and identified coefficient is quite definately not given literature’ s worth. Therefore, I have in order to state the weaknesses plus limitations of my dedication.

Some problems were encountered and the particular percentage uncertainties are very large despite the fact that will I tried to be because accurate as possible. Next time I may try in order to improve my determination along with suggestions provided further plus then more accurate results may come. First of all, the primary weakness of the perseverance was human factor when it was needed either to pull uniformly or to raise the plane very gradually and uniformly at the same time. That was clearly the poorest part of all perseverance as uniformity was extremely difficult to attain. Of course, calculating means allowed me to to determine the coefficients more precisely, but huge questions were still left. Furthermore I could blame the instruments as I needed to use quite many of them, but the uncertainty they will provided was relatively small.

Furthermore, several systematic errors have happened as I had to do lots of calculations and roundings through the data digesting part. Also, the devices may have been poorly calibrated and this can have affected my dedication. However, systematic errors are not so important because even if they actually were encountered, they had been very small. Another thing is along with random errors as they were really significant as the percentage uncertainness shows extremely high result.

I really could provide a number of suggestions to enhance the determination. First of all, We would rather use bigger in addition to longer plane and bigger block. Then, as We would still use the particular same equipment with exact same absolute uncertainties, the percent uncertainty would be reduced significantly. The uncertainty will be less important and more accurate results would arrive. Also, human factor uncertainty would be reduced due to the fact it would be less difficult to pull uniformly or even to lift issues the plane. On the other hand, my suggestions would just lesser the uncertainties, but they would not completely cancel them.