Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Diana Phillips

William Duncan
5.2 Physics
8 September 2015
Terminal Velocity with Paperclips

Aim/Research Question: What is the relationship between mass and terminal velocity, and how
can it be tested?

Hypothesis/Background Information:
Terminal velocity is the velocity at which gravitational force equals air resistance. When an
object is falling, the speed at which its falling continues to accelerate until it reaches terminal
velocity. The two opposing forces balance out and the speed remains constant once it reaches
terminal velocity. This is when the upward force of air resistance upon the object slows it down,
and is thus equivalent to the downward gravitational pull.
In this experiment, we are testing the relationship between terminal velocity and mass. We
are doing this through increasing the mass of a paper cone, by adding up to 20 paperclips inside it
and timing how long it takes to hit the ground over a controlled height. I believe that as the we
increase the mass of the paper cone, the larger the gravitational pull upon it will be. Therefore, it
will take longer for air resistance to be equivalent to it, thus taking longer for it to reach terminal
velocity.

Key Variables:
Independent: Amount of paperclips added (mass)
Dependent: Speed it takes to hit the floor after reaching terminal velocity
Controlled: Consistency of drop height (4.25m), shape/surface area of paper cone

Apparatus:
1 filter paper
Scissors
Tape
20 paperclips of same brand
Stopwatch
Height of 4.25m
2 people
Method:
1. Mark the diameter of the filter paper by bending the paper in half tightly, unfolding it and
following the crease made to cut the radius with the scissors.
2. Push either side made through the cut inwards to create a cone-like shape:

3. Tape it to secure it in this position. Ensure the tape is flat and securing both sides together.
4. Person 1 holds the cone by 2 fingers like shown in the image in step 2, directly an arms-length
in front of him/her and directly over the drop height. Person 1 signals person 2.
5. Person 1 releases the cone, and person 2 hits the stopwatch once the cone reaches the
ground.
6. Repeat step 4-5 twice more, to have completed 3 trials for the selected mass in total.
7. Person 1 proceeds to increase the mass by adding a total of 5 paperclips to the cone, and then
repeating steps 4-5.
8. Person 1 proceeds to increase the mass by adding a total of 7 paperclips to the cone, and then
repeating steps 4-5.
9. Person 1 proceeds to increase the mass by adding a total of 10 paperclips to the cone, and
then repeating steps 4-5.
10. Person 1 proceeds to increase the mass by adding a total of 13 paperclips to the cone, and
then repeating steps 4-5.
11. Person 1 proceeds to increase the mass by adding a total of 15 paperclips to the cone, and
then repeating steps 4-5.
12. Person 1 proceeds to increase the mass by adding a total of 20 paperclips to the cone, and
then repeating steps 4-5.

Data Collection:

Qualitative:
I noticed that once we reached the mass of 10 paperclips and the cone had undergone 9 drops
in total, the tip of the cone had become slightly bent.

Quantitative:

Raw Data Table: Time Taken to Hit Ground for Varied Paperclip Amounts.
Drop height: 4.25m
Paperclips Trial 1 (s) Trial 2 (s) Trial 3 (s)

0 paperclips 2.12 2.25 2.16

5 paperclips 1.81 1.66 1.59

7 paperclips 1.25 1.31 1.31

10 paperclips 1.16 1.22 1.25

13 paperclips 1.13 1.08 1.00

15 paperclips 1.07 1.06 0.97

20 paperclips 0.97 0.91 0.88

Calculated Data Table: Average of Time Taken and TV for Varied Masses Measured

Drop height: 4.25m


Mass Average Time Taken (s) Terminal Velocity (m/s)

1.6g (Paper cone only) 2.17 1.95

3.1g 1.68 2.52

3.7g 1.29 3.29

4.6g 1.21 3.51


Mass Average Time Taken (s) Terminal Velocity (m/s)

5.5g 1.07 3.97

6.1g 1.03 4.12

7.6g 0.92 4.61

Data Analysis:
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the purpose of this experiment was to investigate the relationship between terminal
velocity and mass. I investigated this through designing a method to time the falling speed of
different masses in order to calculate and compare their terminal velocities. In my hypothesis, I
stated that I believed the higher masses would take a longer time to reach their terminal velocity.
The reasoning that led me to this conclusion was the stronger gravitational pull upon objects of
higher mass, the longer air resistance will take to balance out with it.

In the graph above, as mass increases so does the terminal velocity. The lowest mass (1.6g)
average terminal velocity was 1.95m/s, whereas the largest (7.6g) was 4.61m/s. This was the
difference in mass of 0 to 20 paperclips, given that each paperclip weighed 0.3g and the cone itself
was 1.6g. This confirms the outcome of this experiment to be reinstating my hypothesis, as I
clearly stated that the gravitational pull shall increase as the mass increases.

The increase in terminal velocity as the mass increases do not show consistent values due to the
consecutive increases we chose in values lacking consistency. Despite this, the results correlate
and are logical. For example, the greatest difference between consecutive masses in terminal
velocity is 0.49m/s, and this occurred between 15 and 20 paperclips (6.1g to 7.6g, or total 1.5g).
This makes sense as the other consecutive masses only had an increase of 2-3 (0.6-0.9g)
paperclips between them. Excluding the last figure of 15-20 paperclips, approximately each
consecutive mass had an average increase in terminal velocity of 0.31m/s. This calculation further
confirms my hypothesis to be true as one can see the clear distinction.

Evaluation:
In my qualitative data I recorded that I noticed that once we reached the mass of 10 paperclips
and the cone had undergone 9 drops in total, the tip of the cone had become slightly bent. This
acted as a change in the surface area and may have contributed to the higher difference of
terminal velocity in the larger figures, as the pointier end wouldve made the cone fall faster.
- Improvement: Create 2 identical cones and ensure they are identical by measuring them,
weighing them etc. before the experiment. Once the cone point begins to bend, swap to the
second cone. If they are not identical, consider the differences in the evaluation stage/data
analysis for more accurate results. Another alternative would be to change the surface of the
floor used.
My partner and I decided that we are going to initially release the cone from 5.94m like all our
classmates, but only begin to time the release once the cone reached a clear marking of the
second storey floor of 4.25m. We did this to make our method more precise, however another
factor that we did not take into account was at what different points we both considered it to
reach the second storey, as we both took turns timing. This factor could have changed our
results by about maximum 7m/s Id say.
- Improvement: Next time we do this, we should make sure that one person consistently sticks
to timing throughout the experiment and we both establish that the top of the storey/slab of
concrete is when we begin to time.

Suggestions for further work: It would be interesting to see this experiment done with different
gravitational pulls or factors that would change the air resistance, such as surface area. It would
also be interesting to compare the relationship between surface area and terminal velocity with
mass and terminal velocity to see which is greater.

Вам также может понравиться