Does Static Friction Depend on Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jagadish Babu S
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    friction mass
AI Thread Summary
Static friction does depend on mass, as the maximum frictional force is proportional to the normal force, which is influenced by weight. However, when considering objects on an inclined plane, both mass and the angle of inclination affect the forces at play, leading to a situation where different masses can slide at the same angle. The heavier object, like a truck, experiences greater static friction due to its weight, but also has a larger component of gravitational force acting down the incline. This balance results in both the truck and car starting to slide at the same angle despite their differing masses. Real-world factors, such as tire deformation, can further complicate this dynamic, allowing heavier vehicles to maintain traction better than lighter ones under certain conditions.
Jagadish Babu S
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Walter Lewin in his lecture says, a truck and a car on a road will start to slide at a same angle if their tyres are made out of identical material. I know that max. frictional force is proportional to normal force. and if normal force is dependent on mass. shouldn't the frictional force depend on mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jagadish Babu S said:
if normal force is dependent on mass. shouldn't the frictional force depend on mass?
It does. So the frictional force is R=k\cdot m\cdot g\cdot \cos(\alpha) and the force needed to accelerate the car/truck is...
 
So, you are saying we need more force to move truck(high mass) than a car(low mass) and hence they don't start sliding at same angle on an inclined plane?
 
Professor Lewin is, unsurprisingly, correct. So why are they the same?
Just look at a block on an inclined plane and work out what has to happen for it to start sliding. What makes it move at all? Is that friction?
 
I am assuming the more massive object needs more frictional force(k.M.g.sin α) to overcome and also it has large component of force(M.g.cos α) downhill. Object with low mass needs less Frictional force to overcome and has lower component downhill. Both the cases it is the proportionate value that decides when the bodies needs to slide and it happens at same angle independent of mass
 
On a flat road with identical tires the object with more mass (and therefore more weight) will be harder to slide. The maximum static friction value is a product of the coefficient of friction and the normal force (weight). The greater the weight (all other things being equal) the greater the maximum static friction. This can easily be proven with a flat board, a fishing scale, and some bricks.

On an inclined plane the weight of the truck and the weight of the car contribute to force along the incline, so it's a different situation. The different weights contribute forces along the inclined plane proportional to their contribution to the normal force.

But that's theory. In reality there are other things happening that would keep the truck sliding when the car did slide. For example, the heavier truck will squish the tires deeper into the surface of the road increasing their effective coefficient of static friction. Surface effects are why dragsters can accelerate at rates well above G.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top