Coefficients of friction proportional?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the coefficients of rolling friction for a wood sphere and kinetic friction for a wood block sliding down an incline. It highlights that rolling friction is influenced by the radius of the sphere and the materials in contact, while kinetic friction depends solely on the materials. The analysis indicates that there is no direct correlation between the coefficients of rolling and kinetic friction. Additionally, the surface area of the block does not affect the kinetic friction coefficient. Overall, the data suggests that without more values, establishing a proportional relationship between the two types of friction is not feasible.
zpatenaude37
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
If you were to calculate work done by rolling friction of a wood sphere rolling down an incline and compare it to work done by friction of a wood block sliding down an incline, are the values for the coefficient of rolling and kinetic friction somehow proportional to each other?

This is for a project and I want to be able to show whether or not the additional surface area of a block affects the work done by friction. I have calculated values for the coefficients of kinetic and rolling friction from the data I have that I got using video software but I don't think I can correlate the two.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, according to the Mechanical Engineering Handbook i read a few weeks ago, rolling friction depends on the radius of sphere and materials in contact, i.e. larger sphere usually has smaller friction coefficient.
While kinetic friction is purely dependent on the materials in contact. For you idea of having additional surface area for a block simply will not affect the kinetic friction.

So i would say rolling friction and kinetic friction coefficient does not have a specific correlation.
 
zpatenaude37 said:
If you were to calculate work done by rolling friction of a wood sphere rolling down an incline and compare it to work done by friction of a wood block sliding down an incline, are the values for the coefficient of rolling and kinetic friction somehow proportional to each other?

This is for a project and I want to be able to show whether or not the additional surface area of a block affects the work done by friction. I have calculated values for the coefficients of kinetic and rolling friction from the data I have that I got using video software but I don't think I can correlate the two.
When you speak of "rolling friction", are you referring, for instance, to the force between a car tires and the road when the brakes are applied at the maximum short of causing a skid? Or are you referring to the retarding force from the tires as a car coasts to a stop with well-oiled bearings and no brakes? The former is that I would call "static friction". The latter is that I would call "rolling resistance".
 
Yes rolling resistance.
For example:
at the start of rolling down an incline the total energy in the system is
mgy
for a block the final is:
1/2mv^2
for a sphere is:
1/2mv^2 + 1/2Iw^2

initial energy - final energy = thermal energy = work done by friction = mu*n*d

For the sphere my data showed mu = .11
For a cylinder of the same material mu = .11
For the block sliding mu = 0.46

Is there any way to compare the block to the cylinder and sphere to say its proportional?
 
With just two values you cannot show anything about proportionality.
 
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top