Static friction does no work (energy is conserved)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the concept of static friction and its role in work and energy conservation within mechanical systems. Participants explore whether static friction does work, how it relates to energy dissipation, and the implications of different frames of reference in understanding these phenomena.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that static friction does no work and that energy is conserved in systems where only static friction is present.
  • Others challenge this view by suggesting that energy must be transferred to set a mass into motion, implying that work is done.
  • One participant references a textbook that states static friction does no work, but another counters that this is not universally true and depends on the specific physical situation.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between work and energy dissipation, with some arguing that while static friction does not dissipate energy, it may still do work.
  • Participants note that the definition of static friction may vary based on the context, including microscopic effects that are often ignored in idealized models.
  • Some contributions highlight the frame of reference's role in determining whether work is done by static friction, suggesting that work is frame-dependent.
  • There are analogies drawn between static friction and other mechanical systems, such as gears and chains, to illustrate the complexities of defining work in these contexts.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of definitions and the implications of treating bodies as separate versus as a single entity in mechanical interactions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether static friction does work. Multiple competing views remain, with some asserting it does no work while others argue that it can, depending on the situation and frame of reference.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the dependence on definitions of work and static friction, the idealization of rigid bodies, and the unresolved nature of how work is defined in different frames of reference.

nikolafmf
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
I have read that static friction does no work and energy of the system is conserved if only this type of friction exists. Is this only an experimental fact, or can it be proved from basic principles? If it can, how?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction#Static_friction :

"Static friction is friction between two or more solid objects that are not moving relative to each other. For example, static friction can prevent an object from sliding down a sloped surface. "

Where have you read that static friction does no work?

Assume that by a static friction contact you are able to set a mass into motion.
You must have transferred some energy to the mass, isn't it?
Is there a fundamental difference between static friction and a contact force, excpet that one is tengential and the other normal to the contact surfaces?
 
maajdl said:
Where have you read that static friction does no work?
Tipler, "Physics for Scientists and Engineers", 5th edition, page 292: "Because the friction is static, it does no work, and there is no dissipation of mechanical energy".

The problem in question is ball rolling down an incline without slipping. The friction between the ball and the incline is said to be static.
 
nikolafmf said:
static friction does no work...
... in the rest frame of the surfaces in contact.
 
I am in agreement with both maajdl and A.T.. The work done by static friction is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer. In fact, work in general is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer.

Chet
 
nikolafmf said:
Tipler, "Physics for Scientists and Engineers", 5th edition, page 292: "Because the friction is static, it does no work, and there is no dissipation of mechanical energy".

The problem in question is ball rolling down an incline without slipping. The friction between the ball and the incline is said to be static.

Tipler said that? That's very disappointing 'cause it ain't always true. But sometimes it is, depending on the specific physical situation.
 
I think there is maybe a confusion here between "work" and "dissipation of energy".
In static friction, no energy can be lost or dissipated.
But work can be done.
 
This is about definitions. Static friction is usually regarded as the force being reversibly/elastically applied to one surface by another. Generally, when you apply a force to a fairly rigid object in contact with another surface, some of that force will be transferred to the interface and cause various changes in the second surface. This can include compression, erosion, deflection, flow, and the creation of various surface defects (all on a microscopic level). In the ideal case (which is no doubt what you are being taught) the atomic nature of the surfaces is NOT considered, hence no work is done. (ie. ideal solids). In the real world, if you touch a glass window, you leave a little bit of you on the glass, and a little bit of glass on you. These effects are ignored, except by the writers of CSI (and by tribologists, surface physicists & chemists, forensic scientists, etc.)
 
  • #10
maajdl said:
I think there is maybe a confusion here between "work" and "dissipation of energy.
Yes, or it is a (mis)interpretation of the "static" qualifier. In general "static friction" means there is no velocity difference between the contact surfaces, not that the contact is at rest.
 
  • #11
abitslow said:
In the ideal case (which is no doubt what you are being taught) the atomic nature of the surfaces is NOT considered, hence no work is done.
Even in the ideal case work is done in any reference frame where the contact patch moves parallel to the force. Work is frame dependent.
 
  • #12
Static friction can be though of in just the same as chains and sprockets or gear wheels and teeth. Work can be said to be 'done on' the chain by the driving crank and the same work is 'done on' the output sprocket. There is a lot of angst, expressed in this thread and many others, concerning who or what 'does the work'. Is it really worth worrying about as long as you do the right Force and Displacement calculations. They will tell you the energy transferred.
 
  • #13
I'm not sure how well defined this is.

For example: Stack a rigid body on another rigid body on a frictionless surface and apply a gentle force to the bottom body. Work is done on the upper body but by which force? It seems arbitrary to me.

Alternatively: If we drop a rigid body onto a moving but unpropelled rigid body, then to argue that static friction does work on the upper body would require a non-physical infinite acceleration. If there is no normal force in the direction of the acceleration then there must be a period of dynamic friction.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a rigid body, though. Conceptually in the idealised case, I think you can have it either way, but I don't think you can construct a case where you are forced to conclude that static friction must do work unless you wish to consider it an external force.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
craigi said:
For example: Stack a rigid body on another rigid body on a frictionless surface and apply a gentle force to the bottom body. Work is done on the upper body but by which force? It seems arbitrary to me.
well, seeing as how there is only one force acting on the upper body, there's not a lot of room for arbitrariness there.

The arbitrary choice was made when we considered this as two bodies with a force acting between them, instead of as one larger body. If we had glued the two bodies together, we wouldn't have any trouble with treating the two bodies as one; and if we instead chose to treat them as two bodies, we'd have no difficulty seeing how the adhesive force of the glue is what's accelerating the upper body. We can think of static friction as just a rather weak glue.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #16
Nugatory said:
The arbitrary choice was made when we considered this as two bodies with a force acting between them, instead of as one larger body.
This and the choice of the reference frame of course. Once you decide what the bodies are and choose the reference frame, the rest follows.
 
  • #17
Nugatory said:
If we had glued the two bodies together, we wouldn't have any trouble with treating the two bodies as one; and if we instead chose to treat them as two bodies, we'd have no difficulty seeing how the adhesive force of the glue is what's accelerating the upper body. We can think of static friction as just a rather weak glue.
Nice example!
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Rolling friction and static friction....
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad I would like a better understanding of friction and hysteresis
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
High School Difference between static and kinetic friction
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Undergrad Rolling Without Slipping
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
Undergrad Is Mechanical Energy Conservation Free of Ambiguity - follow up
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
6K
Undergrad Friction in Rotations: Do We Disregard It?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad Static rotational friction: does diameter matter?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad Is Static Friction Capable of Doing Work?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
High School Work and Friction: How Does Fxv Apply?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Work is not done by static friction when accelerating a car
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K