Rachelle Stowell

Lab Partner: Greg Lewis

20 February 2015
Lab #4: Air Resistance

Abstract
In this lab, the terminal velocity of coffee filters, varying from 1 to 5 filters, was
measured using Vernier LabPro computer interface, a motion detector, and Logger Pro. This was
done by recording the fall of these several coffee filters. Then, looking at the graphs of the
position and velocity graphs, the slope of the position graph was linearly fitted. The slope of this
line gave us the terminal velocity of the coffee filters. The coffee filters masses were then
weighed and the analysis began. Graphs of drag force vs terminal velocity and drag force vs
terminal velocity squared were analyzed to see which method was the better model for drag
force. The conclusion came to be that the cv2, or the drag force vs terminal velocity squared,
was the best model for the data collected.

Purpose and Theory

The purpose of this lab was to understand the concept of terminal velocity, as well as
accurately measure the terminal velocity of several coffee filters. During this lab, we wanted to
see relationships between drag force and terminal velocity, as well as drag force and terminal
velocity squared. We also wanted to see how the drag force depended on terminal velocity.
Procedure and Apparatus
We started off by assembling the set-up for this lab. We gathered the necessary materials,
which were Vernier LabPro computer interface, a microgram scale, 5 basket-style coffee filters, a
motion detector, a computer, Logger Pro, and Excel. We used computer #2, Vernier LabPro #11,
and motion detector #8. The motion detector was set up approximately 2 meters above the floor.
All necessary wires were connected to the corresponding plugs. A coffee filter was then placed
approximately 0.25 meters under the motion detector. We hit collect on LoggerPro, and then
the coffee filter was released. This process was the repeated for 1-5 coffee filters.
After recording the velocity data, the coffee filters masses were weighed. We did not do
this first because we noticed that to fit the coffee filters into the microgram scale, the coffee
filters needed to be folded. If the coffee filters were folded before we did the velocity
measurements, the coffee filters did not fall smoothly.
We then went back to the velocity data collected from LoggerPro and linearly fitted the
most linear portion of the graph on the position vs time graph. We found that if we were to look
at the velocity vs time graph and looked for the straightest portion of that graph, it would help us
decide which part of the position vs time graph was the most linear. After linearly fitting the
graphs, the velocities were recorded, which were the slopes of the linear fits. We also recorded
the uncertainty for each velocity. The terminal velocities were then squared.
All the data was then transferred to Excel after getting our data confirmed with the
instructor.
Data
Figure 1: Sample plot of Position vs Time from Logger Pro

Figure 2: Sample plot of Velocity vs Time from Logger Pro

# of Filters

Mass (kg)

Uncertainty in
Mass (g)

Terminal
Velocity (m/s)

1
2
3
4
5

0.000923
0.001997
0.002923
0.003963
0.004896

+/- 0.0005
+/- 0.0005
+/- 0.0005
+/- 0.0005
+/- 0.0005

0.5825
0.9988
1.209
1.375
1.506

Uncertainty in
Terminal
Velocity (m/s)
+/- 0.007396
+/- 0
+/- 0.1105
+/- 0.0237
+/- 0.03201

Calculations
Terminal velocity sample calculation: (0.5825m/s)2 = 3393m2/s2
Drag force sample calculation: d=mg, 0.000923kg(9.8m/s2)= 9.010-3N
Figure 3: Drag Force vs Terminal Velocity(N vs m/s) graph linearly fitted

Drag Force vs Terminal Velocity

2
1.5
Terminal Velocity

f(x) = 22.96x + 0.47

R = 0.95

1
0.5
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

Drag Force

0.05

0.06

Figure 4: Drag Force vs Terminal Velocity Squared(N vs m2/s2) graph linearly fitted

Drag Force vs Terminal Velocity Squared

2.5
f(x) = 48.96x - 0.02
R = 0.99

2
1.5
Terminal Velocity Squared

1
0.5
0
0

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Drag Force

Figure 5: Drag Force vs Terminal Velocity graph logarithmically fitted

Drag Force vs Terminal Velocity

2
1.5
Terminal Velocity (m/s)

f(x) = 0.55 ln(x) + 3.17

R = 1

1
0.5
0
0

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Drag Force(N)

Results and Conclusions

Comparing figure 3 and figure 4, it appears that the cv2 proportionality (figure 4) was
the better model for drag force. It appears to intersect closer to the origin opposed to figure 3.
Figure 4 also has the better R-squared value, 0.991. The drag coefficient for b is 22.964 and the
drag coefficient for c is 49.96. I logarithmically fitted the drag force vs terminal velocity, it
seemed that it had the best R-squared value; however, the y-intercept was much larger. Looking
at the formula for drag force,

D = C D A v 2
, it makes sense that the graph of drag force vs
2

terminal velocity squared was a more linear relationship because it is closer to the actual
equation.
Looking at both graphs, it is apparent that as the drag force increases, so does the
terminal velocity. This makes sense because drag increases as velocity increases, as you can see
from the formula:
v term

1
2

D = C D A v
. Also, looking at the terminal velocity equation
2

4 mg
A , you can see that as the mass increases, so does the terminal velocity. Since

drag=mg, you can see that drag is proportional to the terminal velocity.
Some sources of error that could have arisen from this lab are not letting go of the coffee
filters correctly and not letting go from the same point every time. The coffee filters could have
fallen differently depending on how they were let go of each time. Since one of drags variables
is the cross section of the area, if some trials fell differently from each other, it could have
affected the cross section of the area, therefore altering the drag force for reasons other than what
we were testing for. Not letting go from the same point for each trial could have affected our data
as well. If we did not let go from a high enough point each time, the coffee filters could have
potentially not of had enough time to reach their terminal velocity.