Experiment One: Physical Pendulum

Jacob Darby
Partners: Ellie Molloy, Tom Marsh,
Courteney Bremner, Matthew Jones

Student ID: 36443458

16/03/2016

Abstract
The flight motion of a hollow paper cone with a solid angle of 0.8 Steradians
was analysed to determine a corresponding drag coefficent at that value. The
mass of the cone was varied to change the terminal velocity of the cone and a
graph of velocity squared against mass was plotted to find the value of the drag
coefficent and its corresponding uncertainty. Assumed to be constant over a
range of terminal velocities this value was calculated to be c D =0.69 0.14
from the gradient of the graph. When compiling this data with the class data of
other solid angle values a correlation between the two was found, that when the
solid angle increases the drag coefficent decreases this relationship was
confirmed by the mathematics seen in the analysis of this result.

Introduction

A dimensionless quantity commonly denoted by

' cD '

the drag co-efficient of

an object is a method of quantifying the resistance of a body in a fluid

environment in this case air. In the following experiment the drag co-efficient of a
hollow cone is measured in relation to its shape. The following equation
determines the physical shape of the cone.

4
1(Equation1)

The angle that, seen from the centre of the sphere, includes a given area on the
surface of that sphere. The value of the solid angle ' '

measured in Steradians

is numerically equal to the size of the area divided by the square of the radius of
the sphere[1].
The angle

' '

is related

to the
solid
angle
and is
shown
in figure
one
below,
this
angle
alows us to construct the shape
of the cone.

Figure one: Figure showing the solid angle of a cone and the angle phi calculated to determine the
shape of the cone.

The drag force of a cone is dependent on many variables including its velocity,
shape, mass of the cone and the density of the fluid the cone travels. From the
following equation the drag co-efficient can be calculated.

cD=

2m ( ga )
( Equation 2 )
A v 2

Where

' '

the density of air is calculated through the following equation

involving atmospheric pressure, temperature and R named the gas constant.

The cross sectional area

' A'

Patm
( Equation 3)
RT

for a cone of angle

' '

is found through the

following relation.
2 2

r (
A=
Equaiton4 )
4

Throughout the report calculations of uncertainty involving density of

surrounding air, terminal velocity of the cone and cross sectional area of the
cone will use the following relation for only two variables (x and y) this will be
referenced in the method in the uncertainty calculations.

2
f 2

x
z=

( )

Method
Procedure
Each group was assigned a solid angle which was used to build their cone. From
the solid angle the angle

' '

was found from equation 1, angle

' '

can be

seen in figure one in diagram (a). After this a constant radius value of the cone
was found and both the corresponding uncertainty values of phi and radius was
determined using half the smallest incremental value on the measuring
equipment. Following this the density of air was found using equation 3 and its
uncertainty using equation 5. After these initial constants had been determined
the construction of the cone could begin.

After a failed first attempt the following method of cone construction was
decided on.
B

Radiu
s

Figure Two: Figure showing the construction of the cone.

As seen above in figure two the cone was constructed using a flap (yellow line
of figure two) this was done to allow space for taping and to ensure that there
was not gap to allow air flow when connecting points A and B together. Also
when constructed the same mass of tape was applied to each side of the cone to
balance the weight of the cone and keep it in equilibrium. Phi was measured
using a protractor and the cone was measured, cut out and made ready for
testing.
Looking at equation 2 c D was determined by varying the mass and finding
the terminal velocity for different increments of mass. This velocity can be found
by plotting distance vs time graph for the flight of the cone through air for every
addition of mass added to the cones overall weight. Then some variation of mass
vs velocity can be plotted and c D of the cone can be found.
The velocity was measured through the following method, each member of the
group was given a stopwatch and all started our stopwatches together on floor
four as seen in figure three below.

Person one (p1)

Floor 8
Person five (p5) Floor 4
(Meeting
point)
Person four
(p4)
Floor 3 three (p3)
Person
Floor
2 2two (p2)
Person
Floor 1
Figure 3: Figure showing group members and their designated floors.

After this each group member goes to their designated floors. Person one on the
top floor drops the cone from the base of the floor lying down and simultaneously
stops the stopwatch. As the cone travels past the base of each persons floor
they each stop their stopwatches and the times where recorded as seen in table
one in the appendix. This is repeated twice for each mass after each time every

member returning to the fourth floor and synchronising the stop watches for the
next trial. The initial mass was considered to be the tape and the cones mass
combined, five one gram increments where weighed and added for each
separate trial. From this data from each mass the terminal velocity of the mass
was found from the gradient of the distance vs time graph. Using these velocity
values and their corresponding uncertainty values found from equation 5 a
graph of velocity squared against mass was plotted and thus the drag coefficient
of the cone was calculated from the graph.

Results and Analysis

Solid angle allocated was =0.8 from this the value of phi was calculated
using equation one.

=( 0.8 )

180(3.068)
4
1=3.068 radians=
=175.8o
( 0.8 )

From this as outlined in the procedure the cone was constructed with an
appropriate radius of 0.12m which is constant in this experiment.

r=0.12m
The uncertainty in both and r arose from the human use of the
supplied equipment and was assumed as half the smallest incremental values on
both the ruler for the radius and the protractor for phi.

r= 0.05 m

=0.05 o= 0.008 radians

The cross section area was found using Equation four which was derived for
that of a cone

A=

( 3.068) (0.12)
=0.0107 m2
4

Uncertainty in the cross sectional area was again found through the use of
Equation Five

0.008

0.05

2
2
( 2 r 2 )
A =
A=0.0011 m 2

The calculation for the density of air and its corresponding uncertainty where
then found.

Patm =102,050 70 kilopascals

[2]

R=8.3145 J /molK [3]

The value of room temperature was determined using a mercury Barometer
where the uncertainty in the equipment was stated.

T =(295.15 0.1) K
From these values the density of air found using equation 3.

102,050
=1.205 kg /m3
( 8.3145)(295.15)

The uncertainty in the density in air can be calculated from equation 5 and
simplifies to

0.1

70

2
Patm 2

RT2
=

=(1.205 0.0009) kg /m

The initial mass was then weighed at 1.93grams which includes both the mass
of the paper to construct the cone and the tape to bind it.

mi=1.93 grams

The masses of increments of blue tack to be added where decided to be

1.0grams each as this would give a large enough change in velocity and prevent
less movement during the cones flight from incoming draft, which would be an
obvious problem at low masses.

mb=1.00 grams
As outlined in the procedure after these preliminary measurements where taken
the terminal velocity for each mass was found and results recorded as seen on
Table one. Problems where encountered when trying to measure the terminal
velocity of an empty cone, a cone in which no blue tack has been added. When
trying to measure the terminal velocity at this weight the cone experienced large
amount of turbulence and continually bumped into objects in its surrounding due
to limited space throughout the entire flight. Due to this no accurate results
could be taken and thus was disregarded from the experiment entirely as seen in
table one it begins with Mi + Mb where turbulence was bearable for accurate
measurements.
From Table one the values in table two where found, first T1 and T2 which
where this total times of the flight of the cone. These where found by subtracting
P5 and P1 for each trial to give the total time of flight. The uncertainty in the
total time came from the anticipated reaction times of the members of the group
as seen in Table three. These where calculated by trying to see how close each
member could stop a stopwatch on a designated time. Each group member tried
this three times trying to stop the clock on exactly 10seconds and their
corresponding average reaction time was recorded. The average reaction time of
the entire group came from summing everyone average time and dividing by
total number of group members in this case five.

R T av =

Averages = 0.10+0.07 +0.05+0.08+ 0.03 =0.066 seconds

5

From this value the uncertainty in the time calculations could be found through
the following relationship.

T =( n ) R T av= ( 3 )( 0.066 )=0.198 seconds

T =0.198 seconds
n=3 here as only considering the uncertainty of the readings which occur
when the cone is travelling at terminal velocity, which when looking at graph
one occurs towards the end of the cones flight where P3 to P1 take their
stopwatch readings.
When measuring the total distance travelled throughout the flight of the cone
individual measurements of floors where made from the base of one floor to the
base of the one bellow it. It was assumed that simple half the smallest
increment of the tape measure would not be sufficient. This was because when
measuring the floors individually there could be a slight angle from a directly
vertical measurement and change the value of the distance. After many trials the

value was appropriate to approximate this uncertainty was decided to be 0.02m

arising from the spread of many measurements of the same floors.

d =0.02 m ( for one floor )

d =( 8 ) ( 0.02 )=0.16 m( for all eight floors)

d =0.16 m
The distance time graphs can be seen bellow for the different masses of cone.

Graph 1: Set
of graphs
showing the distance vs time for different masses the example code for one of these is in the
appendix code 1

Following this from these graphs the velocity values where found by finding the
gradient of the graphs at the later stages of the flight where the cone is assumed
to have reached terminal velocity these values can be seen in Table two. The
uncertainty values where found individually for each velocity found using
Equation Five in the introduction this simplified to the following relation.

v
=
|v|

d 2 T
+
d
T

)( )

Which gives different uncertainties of velocity based on the mass of the cone
these values and the percentage value of these are shown in Table Two.
Interestingly the percentage uncertainty in velocity increases as the mass
increases and the cone has a higher terminal velocity. This is expected as the
faster the cone travels the less accurate the observers are at stopping the
stopwatch precisely as it travels passed a particular point (the base of the floor).
Now the velocity values have been found the drag coefficient of the cone can be
found. Looking at equation 2 at terminal velocity the cone is not accelerating so
the equation becomes.

cD=

v 2=

2m ( g ( 0 ) )
A v 2

2g
m+(0)
A cD

As you can see this has been simplified to the form of y = mx + c thus if
plotting a graph of velocity squared against mass the gradient of the line will be

m g=

2g
A c D

From this the value of c D can be found. The graph of velocity squared against
mass can be seen bellow along with the uncertainties the code for this is in code
2 in the appendix.

Graph 2: Graph showing a plot v^2 against mass derived from equation 2.

Both of the
following
values obtained from the
code and graph.

mg=2214.3
mg =400
From fitting a straight line to the data as seen in the code in the
appendix the final value of Cd can be calculated from the gradient by
rearranging the equation for the gradient.

cD=

(2)(9.81)
2g
=
=0.69
A mg (0.0107)(1.2045)(2214.3)

The uncertainty in this value can be found again using Equation 5 which comes
out as.

c D=0.14
So the final value of Cd for a cone of solid angle 0.8 is.

c D =0.69 0.14

Other solid angles where allocated to other groups in the class to obtain some
sort of correlation between solid angle and drag coefficient of cones this data is
found in table four.
When looking at the data in table four we can see that there is a general
relationship between drag coefficient and solid angle within the limits of the
uncertainties as solid angle increases drag coefficient decreases. Even for the
value of 0.69 0.14 at the lowest point of uncertainty this could become a
value lower than the solid angle of
with the maths relating

cD

cD

0.6. Furthermore our data is coherent

and solid angle so this inverse relationship was

expected as seen below.

If you substitute equation one into equation four you get

A=r 2 (1

)
4

Then substitute this equation into Equation two

cD=

2 m(ga)

r 2 (1
) v2
4

Again from this relation we can see that as

' '

solid angle increases then the

denominator of this expression also increases for constant values of mass and
velocity. If the denominator increases then

' cD '

decreases confirming the

inverse relationship as discovered in the data.

Conclusion
The study of falling cones has led us to a correlation between a cones solid angle
and its drag coefficient. When allocated a solid angle of

= 0.8 through

measurements of the cones terminal velocity at different masses its drag

coefficient was determined at a value of c D =0.69 0.14 . Through results of
four other groups of increasing solid angles it was discovered that as solid angle
increases the drag coefficient of a cone in fact decreases cementing an inverse
relationship between the two. However experimental uncertainties beyond our
control would have tampered the results, such as the draft where the flight of the
cone took place which caused horizontal movement of the cone as it travelled
through the air. Due to this the cone would sometimes hit the sides of the
banisters and reduce the total time of travel and therefore effect the value of

c D . Thus an improvement in the experiment would be to make the cone flight

environment more spacious and prevent this from happening. The results of this

experiment can aid in the engineering of flying objects whom have components
that are of a cone shape where it is important select a solid angle appropriate for
optimising the objects flight efficiency.
Appendix
Mass(g)
Mi + Mb

P1(s)
40.87
54.64
39.18
51.41
58.75
53.35
44.94
57.10
42.38
56.00

Mi + 2Mb
Mi + 3Mb
Mi + 4Mb
Mi + 5Mb

P2(s)
47.37
60.53
56.60
63.75
58.19
49.19
61.69
46.37
60.06

P3(s)
48.56
61.59
45.87
58.09
65.07
59.34
50.25
62.25
47.47
61.00

P4(s)
50.22
63.53
47.12
59.13
66.13
60.13
51.18
63.13
48.40
61.88

P5(s)
52.07
65.16
48.54
60.59
67.28
61.40
52.20
64.13
49.28
62.75

Table One: Table showing stopwatch times of each person, where Mi is initial mass and Mb is mass
of blue tack.

v (m

%v

Mass(g)

T1(s)

T2(s)

Tav(s)

Dtotal(
m)

Vav(m/s
)

Mi + Mb
Mi +
2Mb
Mi +
3Mb
Mi +
4Mb
Mi +
5Mb

11.20
9.36

9.96
9.18

10.58
9.27

26.84
26.84

2.57
2.89

/s)
0.05
0.06

1.95%
2.08%

8.05

8.53

8.29

26.84

3.20

0.09

2.40%

7.26

7.03

7.16

26.84

3.72

0.11

2.96%

6.90

6.75

6.83

26.84

3.90

0.12

3.07%

Table Two: Table showing final results of terminal velocities, where T1 and T2 are the total time of
flight found from Table One

Name
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5

Trail one(s)
9.95
9.96
9.92
9.93
9.99

Trail Two(s)
9.83
9.97
9.98
9.88
9.94

Trial Three(s)
9.91
9.87
9.95
9.94
9.99

Average (s)
0.1
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.03

Table Three: Table showing the anticipated reaction times of member of the group.

cD

cD

0.6
0.8
1.0

0.55
0.69
0.46

0.07
0.14
0.05

1.2

0.383

0.006

Table Four: Table showing the final results of each groups solid angle and corresponding drag
coefficient value.

References
[1] - http://www.schorsch.com/en/kbase/glossary/solid-angle.html
[2] - http://www.britannica.com/science/atmospheric-pressure
[3] - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html

Code one:
function [v] = velocity(d, t)
% Calculates terminal velocity
% Detailed explanation goes here
v = d / t;
end
clear;
clc;
close all;
% Distance-time graphs to find velocity of each mass
d = [19.03 22.84 26.838];
t = [6.32 7.38 8.53];
t2 = [5.99 6.78 8.05];
dt = [15.22 19.03 22.84 26.838];
tt = [5 6.32 7.38 8.53];
t2t = [4.84 5.99 6.78 8.05];
hold on
plot(dt, tt)
hold on
plot(dt, t2t)
title('Distance aganist time graph for cone of mass Mi + 3Mb')
xlabel('Time(seconds)')

ylabel('Distance(meters)')
v = velocity(d, t)
v2 = velocity(d, t2)

Code 2:
GRAPH OF V^2 vs M
clear;
clc;
close all;
% Data
m = [2.93 3.93 4.93 5.93 6.93];
v = [2.57 2.891 3.2018 3.71865 3.9027];
error_m = [0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06];
error_v = [0.07 0.07 0.1 0.11 0.12];
n = length(m);
% Transform
v = v.* v;
m = m*10^-3;
error_m = error_m * 10^-3;
error_v = sqrt((2.* v) .* error_v);
% Plot points and error bars
xyerrorbar(m, v, error_m, error_v, 'r.')
hold on
title('Graph showing velocity squared against mass aided the calcuation of
Cd')
xlabel('mass(kg)')
ylabel('velocity squared(m^2/s^2)')
% Define the basis functions
bf = zeros(2, n);
bf(1,:) = 1;
bf(2,:) = m;
% Create and fill the alpha and beta matrices
alpha = zeros(2,2);
beta = zeros(2,1);
for k = 1:2,
for j = 1:2,
alpha(k,j) = sum(bf(j,:).*bf(k,:)./error_v.^2);
end
beta(k) = sum(v.*bf(k,:)./error_v.^2);
end
% Plot the results
c = inv(alpha);
a = c*beta
v_fitted = a(1) + a(2)*m;
v_plot = a(1) + a(2)*m;
uncertainties = sqrt(diag(c))
chi2 = sum(((v - v_fitted).^2)./(error_v.^2))
plot(m,v_plot,'b-')
ERRORBAR FUNCTION
% xyerrorbar.m
% (c) Nils Sjoberg 07-09-2004 Sweden
% xyerrorbar(x,y,errx,erry,s) plots the data in y vs x with errorbars for
% both y and x-data. Variables errx and erry are arrays of length=length(x
and y) containing the
% error in each and every datapoint.
% s contains drawing-options for the plot and the options are the same as
in

% the ordinary plot-command, however the errorbar is plotted in a very

% nice red hue!
%
% Here is an example
% >figure
% >xyerrorbar([1:0.5:5],[sin([1:0.5:5])],[ones(10,1).*0.1],
[ones(10,1).*0.2],'g+')
% the result shold be a plot of sin(x) vs x with errorbars for both x and
% sin(x) -data.
function []=xyerrorbar(x,y,errx,erry,s)
if length(x)~=length(y)
disp('x and y must have the same number of elements')
return
end
if nargin<5
s='';
end
hold on
for k=1:length(x)
l1=line([x(k)-errx(k) x(k)+errx(k)],[y(k) y(k)]);
set(l1,'color',[0.7 0.05 0.4])
l2=line([x(k)-errx(k) x(k)-errx(k)],[y(k)-0.1*errx(k) y(k)+0.1*errx(k)]);
l3=line([x(k)+errx(k) x(k)+errx(k)],[y(k)-0.1*errx(k) y(k)+0.1*errx(k)]);
l4=line([x(k) x(k)],[y(k)-erry(k) y(k)+erry(k)]);
set(l4,'color',[0.7 0.05 0.4])
l5=line([x(k)-0.1*errx(k) x(k)+0.1*errx(k)],[y(k)-erry(k) y(k)-erry(k)]);
l6=line([x(k)-0.1*errx(k) x(k)+0.1*errx(k)],[y(k)+erry(k) y(k)+erry(k)]);
end
plot(x,y,s)
hold off

References
[1] - http://www.schorsch.com/en/kbase/glossary/solid-angle.html
[2] - http://www.britannica.com/science/atmospheric-pressure
[3] - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html