Static Friction and angle of Repose

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the coefficient of static friction (Mu s) for a wooden block on a wooden plank, both on a horizontal surface and at an inclined angle to find the angle of repose. Participants explore the discrepancies in the measured values of Mu s from different experimental setups.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the methods used to determine Mu s, including maintaining constant speed and measuring angles. Questions arise regarding the consistency of Mu s across different angles and potential sources of error in the experiments.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights into possible errors and considerations for improving the experimental setup. There is an exploration of the differences in results and the factors that may contribute to these discrepancies.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the importance of significant figures in measurements and the potential impact of wood species and grain orientation on friction measurements. There are also considerations about maintaining a consistent normal force during experiments.

genu
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I did an experiment where I had to determine the static friction of a wooden block on a horizontal wooden plank.

I determined Mu s for that to be 0.246

I then used the same block and plank, but this time I tried to determine Mu s by increasing the angle between the plank and the horizontal. I basically raised one side of the plank until the block started sliding...and recorded that angle as the angle of repose. I got Mu s for this part of the experiment to be 0.306

now I had to calculate the percent difference: ((.246-.306)/average) * 100

and I got 21.69 %

Shouldn't the percent difference be as small as possible? I assumed that Mu s would theoretically be the same no matter what angle?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How did you determine the μ for the horizontal plank?

You may have lots of sources of errors.

But to answer your question, yes it is usually agreeable to be able to reconcile the theoretical with the observed.

You may want to consider how the differences in your results arose.
 
Attached how I've setup the experiment for the horizontal. (I determined mu s by adding masses to m2 until the m1 started moving with constant speed) -- at least I tried to maintain a constant speed.

Attached is also the data for Experiment 1 and 2. (i'm comparing only the wood from experiment 2)

as you can see the Mu s is not very different from either experiment...
 

Attachments

  • experiment-1-setup.jpg
    experiment-1-setup.jpg
    13.4 KB · Views: 549
  • experiment-1-data.jpg
    experiment-1-data.jpg
    45.8 KB · Views: 551
  • experiment-2-data.jpg
    experiment-2-data.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 472
I can't see your pics, but ...

If you were maintaining constant speed you were measuring kinetic friction that is always less than static, the point at which it begins to slide.

Other sources of error are not pulling exactly horizontal for instance. Slightly up lightens the loading, down increases the loading. Or measuring the angle ± a degree or so, as you tilt it, etc. Or reading the scale as you are pulling. etc.
 
I think LowlyPion has pointed out the major source of error.

Some other things to think about:

Although I'm doing some fast hand waving about repeatability and error, someone of your level, with what I expect to be your equipment, should probably only use one significant figure for wood on wood.

What species wood? Some woods exhibit stiction.

Did you change the grain orientation?

And, did you have the same normal force each time?
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
8K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
5K