Speed

Decay of a Fidget Spinner

Individual Research Project
Introduction:
Back in 2017 the fidget spinner was the biggest craze for children. I had
many different ones, varying in shapes and sizes. My friends and I would keep
collecting new fidget spinners and would have ‘battles’ against each other to see
whose spinner can spin for the longest time. Back then I had never thought that
it had anything to do with physics.
However, I somehow came across my box of old fidget spinners. Some of
them were very heavy on the edges, while others had almost nothing on the
edges. This got me thinking about the physics between the spin time and the
orientation of the masses.
Over the summer, I was not doing anything productive so I decided to
investigate this relationship. I did not have access to my school lab, as it was the
holidays so I created the whole experiment myself. I used my knowledge of 3D
printers and created my own fidget spinner. Then I found a similar experiment
where they use a laser and LDR to measure the RPM of an object. So I adjusted it
for calculating the RPM of the spinner I had made.
This experiment was a very good way of passing time and more
importantly, it gave me the chance to investigate a physics relationship I was
intrigued by.

Background Research:
A fidget spinner is a toy, which is spun with almost no effort. It has a ball
bearing in the middle, which is responsible for this effortless spinning. This is
because of friction. The rolling friction force is much less than that of sliding
friction force. For example imagine rolling a ball as to sliding a block of the same
material. The ball will stay in motion for much longer as the friction is lesser.
This is the basic principle of the fidget spinners. When you flick the outside of the
spinner to initiate the motion, the ball bearing start to roll and it continues to do
so.
Once the spin speed starts decaying it is crucial where the masses are
placed. That’s why many fidget spinners have extra masses attached on the end
‘lobes’ of the spinner. This is mainly so that it spins longer due the laws of
circular motion. When an object is in circular motion, the radius of the circle is
one of the most important factors in determining the speed of the object as it is
determined by this formula: v = ωr [1], where v is the liner speed, ω is the
angular velocity and r is the radius. When all the masses are placed on the
outside there is a certain radius ‘R’. However when all the masses are placed
closer to the center the radius decreases to ‘r’. The mass of the fidget
surrounding the mass can be considered to be negligible as it has a very minimal
mass compared to the masses. This can be interpreted from figure 1.

R

Figure 1

2
So now if there is a larger velocity magnitude then the magnitude of momentum
is also larger. Furthermore this is linked to the concept of rotational inertia. That
is the acceptance of an object to be rotated. It is given by the formula 𝐼 = 𝑚𝑟 ! [2]
where I is the rotational inertia, m is the mass, and r is the radius of the object. So
again if the object moves away from the rotational axis, it takes longer to slow
down.

Procedure:
Making the spinner
1. Use the 3D printing software to create my own spinner (I used Autodesk
123D)
2. Make a circular shape with a larger hole in the middle, 12 smaller holes
around it and one very tiny hole at the complete edge
a. A hole in the center for the bearing to be placed
b. 6 evenly spread holes at the edge of the spinner for the mass balls
to be kept
c. 6 evenly spread holes closer to the center for the mass balls to be
kept
d. The very small hole is for the laser light to pass through
e. Look at figure 2



Holes for
the mass Holes for
the bearing



Hole for
the laser

Figure 2

Making the holders
1. Using Autodesk 123D create a small rectangular slab with two holes for
the laser
a. Look at figure 3
2. Again using Autodesk 123D create an L-shaped slab to keep the LDR
a. Look at figure 4

Holder
Holder LDR
Laser



Figure 3
Figure 4

3
Creating the holder for the spinner
1. Get a wooden block and drill an Allen Key into it
a. Like shown in figure 5, the Allen Key has to be thin enough so it can
go through the spinner
2. Place the holder with the laser through the Allen Key
a. Keep it in place by fastening it with 2 nuts
3. Place the spinner onto the Allen Key
a. Keep it in place by fastening it with 2 nuts
b. Put the six masses on the six outer edge holes
4. Now slide the LDR holder through the Allen Key until it is above the
spinner
a. Make sure that the LDR is placed exactly above the laser as it needs
to be able to catch all the light
b. Look at figure 5
5. Cover the set up with cardboard to prevent any outside light interacting
with the LDR
a. Leave a small gap for the drill to power the spinner
Drill LDR



Allen

Key



Spinner



Laser

Figure 5

The Arduino
1. Connect the LDR to the Arduino
2. Connect the laser to the Arduino
3. Connect the Arduino to the computer
4. Create the code on the computer
a. Program the Arduino to record the time taken for the laser light to
hit the LDR (the period)


The code I created
and used

Figure 6
4
Carrying out the experiment
After the spinner is set up as shown in the diagram I can almost start the
experiment
1. Get a drill and make sure it is securely fastened on the table
a. Remove the screw as only the spinning part is needed
b. This is necessary as it will be used to spin the spinner at a high
RPM
c. Before placed, coat the edge of the spinner with a thin layer of glue
from a glue
2. Coat the edge of the spinner with a thin layer of glue
a. Use a glue gun
b. This is needed because the drill will create very high friction with
the spinner and if there is no protection then the contact point of
the spinner will start to melt
i. The glue prevents this from happening
3. Get the spinner in contact with the drill and then start spinning the drill
a. This will spin the spinner
b. Start slowly as going too fast may cause the glue to melt also
4. Get the drill fully powered and then move the spinner away from the drill
a. Move the spinner while the drill is still in power as then the
friction of the drill will have minimal effect on the data
5. All the data should be received on a laptop using the Arduino
6. Now wait for the spinner to stop spinning completely
7. Repeat steps 3-6 five more times to get enough trials
a. This will reduce the random error for the experiment
8. Then place all the six masses towards the center and redo steps 3-7
There were almost 600 data points for each trial
Data Collection: so it has been reduced for the “data collection”
section. All the data can be found on a separate
Table 1 – Raw Data Sample excel sheet
Time (μs) Period (μs) This data is a sample of the type of
9371748 10816 data received from the arduino
9411096 13116
9444216 11040
9482024 12602
9516088 11354
9554112 12674
9587280 11056

Table 2 – Processed Data Where All 6 Masses Were Placed at the Edge of the
Spinner
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
Time RPM Time RPM Time RPM Time RPM Time RPM
(s) (s) (s) (s) CHA (s)
20.35 5505.60 28.25 5519.78 22.89 5520.79 14.66 12.28 25.00 5314.44
20.38 5024.28 28.29 4917.63 22.93 5155.97 14.86 907.59 25.03 5650.78
20.41 5473.95 28.32 5418.59 22.96 5680.74 15.05 902.88 25.07 5124.70
20.45 4992.93 28.36 4969.36 23.00 4952.95 15.25 906.28 25.10 5784.25
20.48 5491.49 28.39 5364.33 23.03 5687.74 15.45 894.49 25.14 5067.14
20.52 4997.50 28.43 4944.78 23.06 5036.09 15.65 902.12 25.17 5677.52
20.55 5477.95 28.46 5335.70 23.10 5531.99 15.86 892.11 25.20 5266.85

5
20.59 4954.58 28.50 4979.67 23.13 5191.21 16.06 892.22 25.23 5663.58
20.62 5465.97 28.53 5304.10 23.16 5507.62 16.26 886.13 25.27 5058.60
20.66 4968.12 28.57 4927.32 23.20 5095.11 16.46 897.45 25.30 5737.78
20.69 5414.67 28.60 5298.01 23.23 5565.35 16.67 879.48 25.34 5033.13
… … … … … … … … … …
48.61 781.51 56.24 804.44 50.70 812.39 58.86 799.45 52.55 814.14
48.84 773.32 56.48 765.73 50.93 772.12 59.09 761.58 52.78 771.91
49.09 732.14 56.72 752.54 51.17 757.80 59.33 747.08 53.02 756.08
49.34 719.99 56.97 708.45 51.42 719.49 59.59 706.51 53.27 716.42
49.60 679.49 57.23 700.87 51.67 707.58 59.85 689.71 53.53 698.77
49.87 663.06 57.50 653.40 51.95 661.25 60.13 645.90 53.80 661.35
50.16 625.17 57.78 639.50 52.23 645.77 60.42 624.94 54.08 641.08
50.46 606.28 58.08 599.44 52.52 603.93 60.73 584.24 54.38 597.91
50.77 567.38 58.40 577.68 52.83 581.07 61.05 560.47 54.70 571.05
51.10 544.66 58.73 538.15 53.17 539.39 61.39 519.46 55.04 529.71
51.46 503.95 59.09 507.49 53.52 509.96 61.76 488.34 55.40 500.85

Graph 1 – Graph To Show How The RPM Of The Spinner Decays Over Time Where
All Six Masses Were Placed On The Edge (Table 2)

Data Analysis:
From the graph above a clear trend can be seen regarding how the speed
decays over time. All of the five trials were recorded from a RPM of 5500 to an
RPM of 500. This was done so that it is possible to compare all the trials, as
sometimes the RPM was much higher. Also the time is not stated as in each trial
the spinner reached 5500 RPM after different times. This can be seen from table
2 where trial 1 reaches after 20.35s while trial 2 takes 28.25s. By looking at the
graph we can see that the ‘orange trial’ reached 500 RPM before all the others. It
is an outlier as the other 4 trials are very well grouped together. This could have
been caused by a number of reasons: the drill was still in contact with the
spinner even after the drill was stopped or the LDR could have misfired, which
will all be discussed later in more depth.
Uncertainties are present but they are too small to be seen on the graph.

6
 Table 3 – Processed Data Where All 6 Masses Were Placed At The Inside Of The
Spinner
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5
Time RPM Time RPM Time RPM Time RPM Time RPM
(s) (s) (s) (s) (s)
22.60 5531.99 24.82 5496.52 16.87 5522.32 11.98 5498.03 4.27 42.15
22.64 4872.90 24.86 4667.81 16.91 4740.46 12.02 4763.04 4.51 751.00
22.67 5469.46 24.90 5466.47 16.94 5464.48 12.05 5458.02 4.74 776.75
22.71 4877.65 24.93 4682.74 16.98 4758.13 12.09 4678.00 4.98 752.99
22.74 5457.52 24.97 5448.60 17.02 5378.27 12.12 5479.95 5.21 794.82
22.78 4858.69 25.01 4647.92 17.05 4777.07 12.16 4856.73 5.45 745.67
22.81 5463.98 25.04 5324.34 17.09 5341.88 12.19 5412.23 5.68 774.81
22.85 4820.05 25.08 4659.11 17.12 4746.08 12.23 4727.39 5.88 902.91
22.88 5450.58 25.11 5275.19 17.16 5312.56 12.27 5346.64 5.97 1910.34
22.92 4785.45 25.15 4616.45 17.20 4705.14 12.30 4664.90 6.06 2149.46
22.95 5444.15 25.18 5399.08 17.23 5393.74 12.34 5326.23 6.12 2866.97
… … … … … … … … … …
39.66 976.82 41.72 949.89 34.00 994.81 28.99 943.86 26.60 1012.74
39.85 979.74 41.91 960.05 34.19 922.14 29.18 948.63 26.79 935.07
40.05 907.17 42.12 883.96 34.39 918.92 29.39 875.08 26.98 939.00
40.24 908.95 42.32 887.57 34.60 846.38 29.59 877.06 27.19 864.11
40.46 836.62 42.54 815.83 34.82 837.75 29.82 804.16 27.40 858.46
40.68 827.06 42.76 804.98 35.05 769.17 30.04 796.58 27.63 789.33
40.91 761.37 43.01 738.70 35.29 753.90 30.29 726.60 27.86 779.82
41.16 740.73 43.25 722.39 35.55 689.46 30.55 706.91 28.11 712.38
41.42 678.26 43.53 659.56 35.82 665.24 30.83 637.86 28.37 688.18
41.70 645.65 43.81 627.29 36.12 599.30 31.12 608.67 28.66 623.92
42.01 577.18 44.13 565.77 36.44 560.06 31.46 542.02 28.97 588.75

Graph 2 – Graph To Show How The RPM Of The Spinner Decays Over Time Where
All Six Masses Were Placed On The Inside (Table 3)

7
Data Analysis:
Again, by looking at graph 2 a clear trend can be seen. Similarly to graph
1, all the trials started from 5500 RPM and went until 500 RPM in order for us to
be able to compare the data with ease. Also, the x-axis has been left without
values deliberately so that we don’t have to worry about how the different trials
reached 5500 RPM at different times. By looking at table 3 a clear difference can
be seen in the starting times. Trial 1 started at 22.60s while trial 4 started at
11.98s. This is almost half the time as trial 1 and if it were all put on a graph
together it would be very difficult to interpret the data efficiently. Unlike graph 2
there is a bit more variation of the ending times for each of the trials.
Uncertainties are present but they are too small to be seen on the graph.

Calculations:
Time (μs) à Time (s)
𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒(𝜇𝑠)
= 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒(𝑠)
1000000
9371748 𝜇𝑠
= 9.372𝑠
1000000

Period (μs) à RPM
1000000
×60 = 𝑅𝑃𝑀
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 𝜇𝑠
1000000
×60 = 5547.3 𝑅𝑃𝑀
10816𝜇𝑠

Time Taken For Speed Decay

𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 − 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒
51.46𝑠 − 20.35𝑠 = 31.12𝑠

Average Time Taken

𝑡! + +𝑡! + 𝑡! + 𝑡!
=𝑇
5
31.12𝑠 + 30.84𝑠 + 30.63𝑠 + 32.69𝑠 + 30.40𝑠
= 31.13𝑠
5

Average Time Taken Uncertainty

𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑇𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒
= ∆𝑇
2
32.69𝑠 − 30.40𝑠
= 1.15𝑠
2

Table 4 – Calculated Data To Show The Time Taken For Spinner Decay When The
Masses Were On The Edge
Initial Time Final Time Time Taken
Trial 1 t1 20.35 51.46 31.12
Trial 2 t2 28.25 59.09 30.84
Trial 3 t3 22.89 53.52 30.63
Trial 4 t4 28.70 61.39 32.69
Trial 5 t5 25.00 55.40 30.40
Average Time Taken (s) T 31.13
Average Time Taken Uncertainty (s) 1.15

8
 Table 5 – Calculated Data To Show The Time Taken For Spinner Decay When The
Masses Were On The Inside
Initial Time Final Time Time Taken
Trial 1 22.60 42.35 19.75
Trial 2 24.82 44.48 19.65
Trial 3 16.87 36.81 19.94
Trial 4 11.98 31.82 19.84
Trial 5 9.37 26.60 17.23
Average Time Taken (s) 19.28
Average Time Taken Uncertainty (s) 1.30

Conclusion:
The aim of my experiment was to see how mass affected the speed decay
of the spinner. By looking solely at my graphs we can note some observations.
Firstly, the trend between the changes in RPM was very similar for both the
different mass positions. There is almost no difference in the general
relationship between time and speed decay. However, I am unable to obtain a
clear answer for my research question. This is due to the fact that there is no
numbers on the x-axis. As stated above, this is done because in the different
trials, each of the spinners reached the ‘start’ speed of 5500 RPM at different
times and by including all of this it would create a huge mess.
Furthermore we can look at tables 2 and 3 for a somewhat clearer
interpretation of what is occurring. From the tables we can deduce the time
taken for each trial. To make the viewing easier this information has been placed
in tables 4 and 5. Now we can distinctly see the difference in times for when the
masses were on the outside and when the masses were on the inside. When the
masses were out, it took about 31.13s ±1.15 but when the masses were inside it
took a mere 19.28s ±1.30. There is a clear distinction between the results and we
come to a conclusion that the position of the masses does have an impact on the
speed decay. These results were to be expected as I knew that as the ‘radius’ of
the spinner increases, so does the rotational inertia.
No uncertainties are shown on the graphs because they were too small
and not necessary. This is due to the equipment used as the LDR and the laser
had almost no uncertainty. However, while collecting the data several trials had
to be disregarded and redone. This was because the LDR had not received the
laser signal and it clearly evident when the graph was made. Also the trend is
very precise as all of the trials have almost the same results and the same
relationship between time and RPM. Furthermore, by looking at table 4 and 5 the
uncertainty is under 15%. This could be improved by increasing the number of
trials, but overall it doesn’t have a big effect on the relationship between the time
taken and the position of the masses.

Evaluation:
Improvements
Even though this experiment seems to be very precise there are certain
improvements that could be implemented. Firstly, there is an uncertainty of
14.83% for table 5. Although this doesn’t have a big effect on the data and the
relationship, this is a systematical error and a change in the procedure will be
needed. This uncertainty could be caused because the drill that powers the

9
spinner will always have some friction when the spinner is moved away.
Sometimes the friction would be more, resulting in the change in speed.
Secondly, while conducting the experiments, the spinner was spun until
different RPMs and then the drill was moved away. Although this wouldn’t have
a major effect on the data, by speeding all the trials to the same value e.g.: until
7000RPM, and then let it decay could have altered the results a bit. This isn’t an
important change that I should implement, however, this should be taken into
consideration next time I conduct this experiment.
Thirdly, several times while collecting the data I was forced to ignore
certain trials. This was due to several reasons. Sometimes the LDR didn’t receive
the data from the laser. This caused my graph to be very different to the other
trials and therefore I had to redo the trial. Also, twice, I hadn’t moved the drill
away before I stopped the drill. This caused friction between the drill and the
spinner and caused the spinner to be slowed down resulting in it stopping much
faster. I used a very cheap arduino and LDR, so for the next time I could use some
better quality equipment to reduce the chance of this happening.
Lastly, if I redo this experiment then I would use better materials. This
was a homemade experiment and the stand for the spinner and the cardboard to
block the light was not well done. Although it did fulfill its purpose, it was not as
visually appealing and had to be mended several times throughout the data
collection process.

Extension
Next time I would look to elaborate on the extent of the experiment.
Instead of just two different positions for the masses to be kept I could put more
holes in the spinner and see if the trend was followed for those also. This would
enable me to create a graph representing the position of the masses and the time
taken. That would be interesting to see what kind of relationship it would be.
I could also create fidget spinners with different number of ‘lobes’ and see
how that changed the data.

Bibliography:
1. Homer, David, and Michael Bowen-Jones. Oxford IB Diploma Programme Physics 2014
Edition. Oxford University Press, 2014.
2. “Rotational Inertia.” Khan Academy, Khan Academy,
www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/torque-angular-momentum/torque-
tutorial/a/rotational-inertia.
3. Allain, Rhett. “Let's Explore the Physics of Rotational Motion With a Fidget Spinner.” Wired,
Conde Nast, 17 Aug. 2017, www.wired.com/2017/05/physics-of-a-fidget-spinner/.

10