1 of 17

Ziploc Containers: Distance vs. Mass

Research Question
How does the mass contained within a Ziploc container affect the distance it will slide
across a tile floor when launched with a rubber band?
Introduction
The purpose of this lab is to investigate the motion of a Ziploc container. In this
investigation, I chose to measure the effect of mass contained within a Ziploc container on the
distance it will travel in the situation outlined in the research question, because I knew that
friction depends on mass (as it depends on normal force), and that the mass would therefore have
some effect on the distance. Thus, the objective of this investigation is to establish an
experimental relationship between the variables, which may give some insight into frictional
forces.
Variables
The independent variable in this investigation is the mass contained within a Ziploc
container. Throughout this investigation, the measurements of this variable include the mass of
the Ziploc container itself, and are thus the sum of the mass contained within the container and
the mass of the container.
The dependent variable in this investigation is the distance traveled by the Ziploc
container during the experiment.
The variables that will be controlled in this investigation are the type of container, the
surface on which the experiment will be performed, the force with which the container is
launched, the launching mechanism, and the lab conditions.

2 of 17
In order to create a control trial, the experiment will be initially performed without
adding mass to the container.
Materials

1 Ziploc container

Equal masses totaling at least 1 kg

1 Large rubber band (more in case one breaks)

1 Chair

1 Meterstick

1 Tape measure

Note: The masses used in this investigation were unfortunately not equal, as equal masses were
unavailable. Thus, there is somewhat significant variation in each mass. Also, only one rubber
band was necessary, as it did not break, which further reduces variables in play.
Procedure
1. Find the mass of a Ziploc container using an electronic scale and record it in the data table.
2. Attach a rubber band between the front two legs of a chair so that the rubber band is around
each of the legs.
3. Set the chair on a tile floor with a large stretch of open space in front of the chair.
4. Using the meterstick to measure the distance, place the Ziploc container in front of the rubber
band and pull it back until the back of the container is 0.15 m from the initial location of the
rubber band.
5. Release the Ziploc container and wait until it comes to a complete stop.

3 of 17
6. Using the tape measure and measuring from the point of release to the location of the back of
the container (the end closest to the chair), measure the distance the container has traveled
and record it in the data table.
7. Repeat steps 2-6 two more times until three trials have been conducted for the tested mass.
8. Add approximately 0.1 kg to the container, close the container, measure the mass with an
electronic balance, and record it in the data table.
9. Repeat steps 2-7.
10. Repeat steps 8 and 9 until at least 10 different masses have been tested. Test more masses if
time allows.
Note: In order to control as many variables as possible, it is necessary to decide whether the
container will be launched with the lid facing up or with the lid facing down (and thus sliding
across the floor). I chose to perform this experiment with the lid facing down.
Raw Data
The following table contains the data collected while performing the experiment.

Mass (g)
31.14 0.01
124.73 0.02
219.83 0.03
314.20 0.04
406.76 0.05
500.23 0.06
594.68 0.07
688.92 0.08
781.47 0.09
875.18 0.10

Trial 1 (m) 0.05 m

2.91
0.85
0.29
0.37
0.24
0.30
0.21
0.19
0.24
0.19

Distance
Trial 2 (m) 0.05 m
3.25
0.70
0.62
0.27
0.29
0.34
0.20
0.17
0.23
0.17

Trial 3 (m) 0.05 m

2.62
1.21
0.51
0.30
0.31
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.22
0.23

I chose 0.05 meters as the uncertainty for all of the distances due to my observation that
the Ziploc container did not travel on an entirely linear path, and therefore the distances may not

4 of 17
be entirely accurate. This also accounts for uncertainty inherent in the process of measuring with
a tape measure, in that slight errors in placement are possible.
I chose to increase the uncertainty of the mass with each successive data point, as the
balance available could not measure the entire mass without exceeding its limit. Thus, I had to
measure each addition of mass (once per data point) and add it to the previous mass with the use
of my calculator. Thus, the uncertainty of 0.01 g in a single measurement of mass is added again
for each additional measurement, as each additional measurement also has uncertainty and
therefore increases the overall uncertainty.
Data Processing
First, in order to maintain common unit conventions, I converted all of the mass
measurements from grams to kilograms by multiplying them by 10-3. A sample calculation using
the first mass is shown below:

The following table is the new data table with the converted measurements.
Distance
Mass (kg)
Trial 1 (m) 0.05 m Trial 2 (m) 0.05 m Trial 3 (m) 0.05 m
0.03114 0.00001
2.91
3.25
2.62
0.12473 0.00002
0.85
0.70
1.21
0.21983 0.00003
0.29
0.62
0.51
0.31420 0.00004
0.37
0.27
0.30
0.40676 0.00005
0.24
0.29
0.31
0.50023 0.00006
0.30
0.34
0.23
0.59468 0.00007
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.68892 0.00008
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.78147 0.00009
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.87518 0.00010
0.19
0.17
0.23
First, to analyze the data, I averaged the distance measurements of the three trials for
each data point, using a calculated uncertainty of one-half the range of the measurements. A
sample calculation using the first mass is shown below:

5 of 17

The following data table includes the averages and uncertainties of the distances for each mass:
Mass (kg)
0.03114 0.00001
0.12473 0.00002
0.21983 0.00003
0.31420 0.00004
0.40676 0.00005
0.50023 0.00006
0.59468 0.00007
0.68892 0.00008
0.78147 0.00009
0.87518 0.00010

Average Distance (m)

2.93 0.32
0.92 0.26
0.47 0.17
0.31 0.05
0.28 0.04
0.29 0.06
0.20 0.01
0.18 0.01
0.23 0.01
0.20 0.03

6 of 17
Next, I created a graph of the above data using Graphical Analysis 3.4 and included
uncertainty bars, as well as a fit line for an inverse relationship, which was generated by
Graphical Analysis. This relationship appears to correlate well with the graph and makes sense
logically, since as mass increases, not only would the distance traveled be smaller, but also the
rate of change of that distance with respect to mass would be smaller.

The fit generated by Graphical Analysis is ( )

, where x(M) represents the

distance traveled and M represents the mass of the container and the added mass.
Since an inverse relationship is a power relationship with a power of -1, this relationship
can be further justified by performing a logarithmic transformation by taking the logarithm of
both the x(M) data and the M data. Since a power function follows the form

, taking the

7 of 17
logarithm of both sides of the equation yields the form
a linear equation in the form

, which resembles

. The equation

to the variables used in this investigation, is

( )

, when adapted
Thus, the data should

form a linear relationship when the logarithm of both data sets is graphed, and q, the power of
the relationship, will be equal to the slope of the transformed graph.
The following calculation is a sample of the calculations used to perform this
transformation, using the distance of 2.93 m:

Graphical Analysis performed the above calculation for each value in both of the data sets to
create the following table of transformed values, alongside their original values.
Mass (kg)
0.03114 0.00001
0.12473 0.00002
0.21983 0.00003
0.31420 0.00004
0.40676 0.00005
0.50023 0.00006
0.59468 0.00007
0.68892 0.00008
0.78147 0.00009
0.87518 0.00010

log (M)
-1.507
-0.904
-0.658
-0.503
-0.391
-0.301
-0.226
-0.162
-0.107
-0.058

Average Distance (m)

2.93 0.32
0.92 0.26
0.47 0.17
0.31 0.05
0.28 0.04
0.29 0.06
0.20 0.01
0.18 0.01
0.23 0.01
0.20 0.03

log (x(M))
0.467
-0.036
-0.328
-0.509
-0.553
-0.538
-0.699
-0.745
-0.638
-0.699

8 of 17
Thus, I created the following graph by using calculated columns in Graphical Analysis to
take the logarithm of both sets of data, adding a computer-generated linear fit, and omitting the
error bars. log (M) is on the x-axis and log (x(M)) is on the y-axis.

A mostly linear trend is evident from the correlation of -0.9835 (with -1 being a perfect
linear relationship) and from the general image of the points. However, there are deviations that
are likely due to uncertainty and error in the measurements. The equation generated by
Graphical Analysis, in the form
that is useful to this investigation is

, is
( )

. However, the form

. Since these two equations

share the same general form, and since the data actually graphed is

( ) vs.

, the term

m in the Graphical Analysis form represents q in the desired form, and b in the Graphical
Analysis from represents

in the desired form.

9 of 17
Thus:

Since the ultimate form of the non-transformed relationship is ( )

, it is necessary to

find p:

Therefore, the logarithmic transformation indicates that the experimental relationship

between the distance traveled and the mass of the container and added mass is ( )
. Since -0.8350 is nearly -1, and rounds to -1 when rounding to the ones place,
this equation supports the initial selection of an inverse relationship between the distance
traveled and the mass of the container and added mass.
Based on these results, I transformed the original data by taking the inverse of the M data
set (raising each term to a power of -1) in order to form a linear relationship, which allowed me
to better analyze the data and create an equation for the inverse relationship with appropriate
uncertainty. I propagated the uncertainty of the non-transformed data through this
transformation. The following calculation is a sample of the transformation including
uncertainty, where the uncertainty is one-half the range of the highest and lowest values of the
inverse (using the uncertainty from the non-transformed data).
(
[

10 of 17
The following table is a table of the transformed values as found through the above process
alongside their original values:
Mass (kg)
Mass-1 (kg-1)
Average Distance (m)
0.03114 0.00001
32.11 0.01
2.93 0.32
0.12473 0.00002
8.017 0.001
0.92 0.26
0.21983 0.00003
4.549 0.001
0.47 0.17
0.31420 0.00004
3.183 0.001
0.31 0.05
0.40676 0.00005
2.458 0.001
0.28 0.04
0.50023 0.00006
1.999 0.001
0.29 0.06
0.59468 0.00007
1.682 0.001
0.20 0.01
0.68892 0.00008
1.452 0.001
0.18 0.01
0.78147 0.00009
1.280 0.001
0.23 0.01
0.87518 0.00010
1.143 0.001
0.20 0.03
I decided to keep transformed values to 4 significant figures, because that was the number of
significant figures in the least precise value. In order to match precision, I rounded all
uncertainty calculations up, because zero uncertainty is untrue and unreasonable.

11 of 17
Next, I graphed the transformed mass data on the x-axis and the original distance data on
the y-axis, including error bars, to create the following graph:

12 of 17
Since most of the points are not easily visible, the following graph is an enlarged version
of the graph of the first nine points:

The graph and its enlargement appear to demonstrate a somewhat linear relationship,
which further supports the validity of an inverse relationship between the distance traveled and
the mass. Thus, I proceeded by finding a maximum and minimum fit line and then averaging
them with an uncertainty of one-half the range to find a best fit line with uncertainty for the
transformed graph. Since the form of the fit line should for a linear graph with the selected
variables be (

(where M -1 is the inverse of mass) I needed to solve for m

and b for both the maximum and minimum fit lines. I chose to use the two end points (1.143
0.001 , 0.20 0.03 ) and
(32.11 0.01 , 2.93 0.32 ) to create the fit lines, as outlined in the table on the next page:

13 of 17

Fit
Max

Points
(
(
=(

Min

);
)
);(

Intercept (b)
(
)
(

)(

)(

);
)

(
=(

Slope (m)

);(

)
(

Note: The decision to add or subtract the uncertainty from each coordinate is made in
order to create the largest change in x(M -1) over the smallest change in M -1 for the maximum
line and the smallest change in x(M -1) over the largest change in M -1 for the minimum line so
that the maximum line has the maximum slope and the minimum line has the minimum slope.
I calculated the average (best fit) line by averaging the m-values with an uncertainty of
one-half the range and averaging the b-values with an uncertainty of one-half the range:

14 of 17

The final equations for each of the three fit lines are shown in the following table:
Maximum Fit Line

Minimum Fit Line

(
) (
)
Best Fit Line
(
)
(Average)
I next graphed these three equations alongside the transformed data to analyze the results.
The red fit is the maximum, the blue fit is the minimum, and the green fit is the best fit line:

15 of 17

The following graph is the enlarged version of the first nine points for easier viewing:

As demonstrated by these graphs, the best fit line seems to fit the data relatively well, and
thus it is a reasonable model for the experimental relationship.
Conclusion
Therefore, I have concluded that the distance traveled by a Ziploc container across a tile
floor when launched by a rubber band is inversely related to the mass of the container and its
contents. This seems reasonable, because frictional force, which slows the container down and
thus reduces the distance it travels, increases as the mass of the container increases. Thus, as the
mass of the container increases, the distance it travels decreases. It is also logical that the rate of
change of distance with respect to mass decreases as mass increases, because as the frictional

16 of 17
force becomes far greater than the applied forward force, the effect of a small increase in friction
becomes less effective, as the increase pales in comparison with the size of the frictional force.
Thus, it makes sense that each addition to the mass of the container has less of an effect than
each previous addition. Therefore, an inverse relationship is a logical conclusion as to the
experimental relationship, which I found to be
(

after linearization. In the equation, (

) represents the distance traveled in meters and

represents the mass of the Ziploc container and its contents in kilograms raised to a power of -1
(thus, the inverse of the mass). Thus, the investigation was successful in determining a logical
relationship between the dependent and independent variables.
Errors and Limitations
A major source of uncertainty in this experiment was the failure of the Ziploc container
to travel in a straight line, which created significant uncertainty in the measurements of the
distance. This issue likely had the most significant effect on the data. This source of uncertainty
could be somewhat controlled if a path was blocked off for the Ziploc container to slide along,
thus increasing the likelihood that it would follow a linear path. However, this barrier should
produce as little friction as possible, or it would damage the results by adding an uncontrolled
variable.
A second source of uncertainty in this experiment was introduced through the balance
and the tape measure. Since the balance could not measure the mass of the container and all of
the added mass at the same time, uncertainty was introduced in adding masses. This uncertainty,
however, is largely insignificant in comparison to other sources of uncertainty. An improvement
upon this source of uncertainty would be the use of a balance that can measure a greater mass.

17 of 17
Also, the tape measure introduced uncertainty in that there is a possibility that it can bend,
crumple up, or otherwise measure an inaccurate distance. This is a somewhat significant source
of uncertainty. However, it could be improved upon with the use of a laser device to measure
distance.
A major limitation of this investigation is the specific conditions under which it occurred.
Due to time constraints, only one container and only one surface (the tile floor) could be tested.
Ideally, a variety of containers made out of a variety of materials could be tested on a variety of
surfaces to test the validity of the conclusions drawn for this situations in their application to
other situations. However, this would require more time and resources than were available for
this investigation.