Does molecular flatness affect friction differently?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether molecular flatness affects friction differently between two surfaces, one completely flat and the other slightly uneven. It concludes that the uneven surface would likely produce more friction due to molecular interactions, as the 'valleys' provide areas for the block's molecules to catch and create resistance. Additionally, friction is influenced by the attraction at the molecular level, where weak bonds must be broken during sliding. The conversation also touches on the complexity of friction, noting that it primarily depends on normal load rather than contact area. Overall, the relationship between surface texture and friction is nuanced, involving both geometric and molecular factors.
hav0c
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
We have two surfaces
One is completely flat even on molecular scale (hypothetically)
the other is a little uneven (but still much less than actual values, ill go with the hills and valleys view)
The object used is completely flat for both case( a block)will the completely flat surface have more friction?
i think it would
(edit: both the surfaces are made up of the same substance)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
is this a stupid question?
 
It's certainly not a stupid question, this is typically how we're taught to think of friction in a general physics class. There's a bit more to it than simply shape, but the more uneven surface should produce more friction when you slide a block across. The 'valleys' allow for places for the block's molecules to get caught and produce more friction.
 
I thought friction between apparently smooth surfaces was largely to do with attraction at the molecular level. You're constantly having to break weak bonds that spontaneously form. That is the answer offered at http://library.thinkquest.org/C006300/data/seven3_1.htm and at http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_causes_friction_and_why_does_it_occur.
Whether it's nubs or bonds, the hard part is explaining why it depends almost exclusively on normal load and hardly at all on contact area. I suppose the mean separation of the surfaces would be greater with a larger area, but it's far from obvious that this leads to the observed result.
But see also http://lima.osu.edu/academics/physics/Student%20Contributions/What%20is%20friction.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Back
Top