Coefficient of 'Kinetic' Rolling Friction(?)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the coefficient of rolling friction and whether it remains constant for stationary and moving objects. It highlights that rolling resistance is distinct from static and kinetic friction, suggesting that a larger force is needed for initial acceleration from rest compared to maintaining motion. The conversation also notes that rolling resistance may be influenced by factors like tire condition and surface interaction. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of terminology, advocating for the term "rolling resistance" to avoid confusion with traditional friction concepts. The need for further literature on this topic is expressed, especially regarding the relationship between static and rolling resistance.
mart7x
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
When looking at rolling objects, the force of rolling resistance is determined by a coefficient of rolling friction. Is this coefficient constant for an object when both stationary and moving? Or is there a separate static and kinetic coefficient as there is with sliding friction?

I am asking this because the research I have done into this so far, I have only found talk of just the one coefficient. However an object on wheels much surely require a larger force for initial acceleration from stationary than to maintain velocity once in motion? If you could recommend any literature on this subject that would be very kind, I have searched through a number of books on Statics but can't seem to find much information.

Martin
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Unless it's moving it's not rolling.
 
So... for a wheel for example: Stationary - Coefficient of Static Friction, Rolling - Coefficient of Rolling Friction.

If a surface was made of wood, a wooden wheel would have the same resistive force as a block of wood when resting stationary on top (assuming they have the same mass)?
 
It should be called rolling resistance, not rolling friction, since that can cause it to be confused with actual friction (static or dynamic).

You could consider "static" rolling resistance to be related to the amount of torque or force it takes to overcome a "flat' spot at the bottom of the wheel if it's been at rest for some time. For example a cold tire on a car that's been at rest overnight. Normally rolling resistance is considered a constant fraction of the weight on the wheel (or the force between tire and pavement). It may vary a bit with speed, but I don't know the formula.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top