I accumulated my three results added together, dividing it by three and with that I divided Force friction over Force pull and received an average (Mu) of .63 for sandpaper. My partners accumulated their results and received a .34 for the average (Mu) of cardboard, .63 for cork and I did rubber which gave me the average (Mu) of .65. When solving for the percent error, I was universally and mathematically off the charts in terms of a number scale when I solved for the percentage. For example, I reached 140% as my percent error for sandpaper which would definitely be incorrect. I messed up the number scale in my trial when reading off the spring scale, thus causing my calculations and data to be …show more content…
There really was not an exact correct trial of percents because each time the block’s position occured on a different spot on the surface. From this, my results turned out to be way better, for example my percent error for sandpaper was now 15%-17% which was a huge leap from the massive 140% that I had in my original try. For the percent error comparing the slope of best fitted line and got 6.25% for cardboard, 3.17% sandpaper, 8.62% cork and finally .15 % rubber. I was off for cardboard, sandpaper, cork but the one that I didn 't mess up on was rubber which had a .15 %. From this I learned that because of the block being pulled on different parts of the surface there were different frictions that had occurred. Notice, that the value of (Mu) should have stayed the same and the normal force and friction determine the (X,Y) and all together it will from the friction coefficient. The material is the biggest thing that determines the friction of an