Frictional Force: Motion Direction Example?

AI Thread Summary
Friction typically opposes the direction of motion, as seen in the case of a tire rolling forward, where it prevents sliding backward. The discussion emphasizes that while friction acts to prevent slipping, it does not contribute to the tire's forward acceleration. When the tire is in motion, the point of contact with the ground remains stationary, resulting in zero work done by friction. The confusion arises from the distinction between opposing sliding motion versus translation motion. Ultimately, friction's role is to maintain traction without contributing to acceleration when the tire is rolling without slipping.
oreo
Messages
81
Reaction score
2
Is there an example in which friction acts in direction of motion. Any special case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Rolling motion , If you have a tire , the frictional force would oppose the tendency of the tire to slide back , that means the frictional force will act to the opposite direction to slide motion and in the direction of the translation motion of the tire,,

Hope it is obvious ,,
 
But we can apply this to every case
Actually in this case also the frictional force is opposing motion of tire. If it is true then the tire should accelerate by itself.
 
  • Like
Likes Maged Saeed
shayan haider said:
But we can apply this to every case
Actually in this case also the frictional force is opposing motion of tire. If it is true then the tire should accelerate by itself.

What do you mean by applying this case to every case ??

The frictional force here is opposing the tendency of the tire to slide back ward when it is moving forward not the translation motion of the tire itself ..,,
 
Maged Saeed said:
What do you mean by applying this case to every case ??

The frictional force here is not opposing the tendency of the tire to slide back ward when it is moving forward not the translation motion of the tire itself ..,,
It would oppose if the tire is stationary but it is in motion. If it is in direction of motion like you are saying then the tire should accelerate. Isn't it
 
Actually we say that the tire is touching the ground with one point , and ,this point is not moving during the contact time and we say that the work done by the frictional force is ZERO since it is not making any sliding to the tire , and that is IF the tire is not sliding .
 
Last edited:
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
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?
Back
Top