Friction Between Clothing & Giant Rock: 833 N & μ=4.58?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of achieving a friction force of 833 N between clothing and a giant rock, with a coefficient of friction (μ) calculated at 4.58. Participants question whether this value is excessively high, noting that the coefficient of friction can exceed 1, making 4.58 theoretically possible. The scenario involves cartoon characters decelerating upon impact, leading to the derived values of mass and acceleration. While a μ of 4.58 is unusual for clothing against rock, it is not deemed impossible within the context of physics. The conversation highlights the often exaggerated portrayal of physics in cartoons.
carol95
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to have friction between clothing and a giant rock equal to 833 N? The μ would equal 4.58. Isn't it too big?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would the coefficient of friction need to be 4.58? Wouldn't it depend on how hard they're pressed together?
 
Well this is for a physics project and a lot of it depends on guessing. We found friction to be 833 N, mass to be 85 kg, acceleration to be -2.14 m/s^2 because the cartoon characters are decelerating as they hit the wall. Will all of this μ(ma)= Friction, we found μ to be 4.58. We are just wondering if 4.58 would be too big for μ.
 
Oh, ok.

4.58 would be large but there's nothing in the laws of physics (as far as I know) that limits the coefficient of friction. I know at least that it can be greater than 1, so 4.58 isn't completely crazy.

Between clothing and a rock though, it would certainly be abnormal (but perhaps not impossible)
 
Everyone one knows that 'cartoon characters' always present physics in a true and accurate manner.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top