Is rolling resistance related to relative motion at the point of contact?

AI Thread Summary
In purely rolling motion on an inclined plane, the work done by friction is zero because there is no relative motion at the point of contact between the object and the surface. This means that while there is a frictional force, it does not perform work since it does not change the object's speed, only its direction. If slipping occurs, relative motion exists, leading to work being done by friction. Rolling resistance arises from non-elastic deformations at the contact point, which results in energy loss. Understanding these principles clarifies the relationship between rolling motion and frictional forces.
iitjee10
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
When there is purely rolling motion in an inclined plane, it is mentioned that work done by the frictional force is zero!
Why should it be zero as there is definitely a force as well as displacement in opposite direction of force?
Is this true or for rolling motion there is some other significance?

Plzz help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
iitjee10 said:
When there is purely rolling motion in an inclined plane, it is mentioned that work done by the frictional force is zero!
Why should it be zero as there is definitely a force as well as displacement in opposite direction of force?
Is this true or for rolling motion there is some other significance?

Plzz help
If the object is purely rolling, i.e. there is no slipping, what can you say about the [relative] velocity of the point of contact on the body and the inclined plane?
 
iitjee10 said:
When there is purely rolling motion in an inclined plane, it is mentioned that work done by the frictional force is zero!
Why should it be zero as there is definitely a force as well as displacement in opposite direction of force?
Is this true or for rolling motion there is some other significance?

Plzz help
Remember that work is directly related to changes in kinetic energy.
Because changes in kinetic energy is related to changes in SPEED, rather than to changes in velocity, it follows that forces that ONLY change the direction of velocitiy (rather than changing its magnitude) do not do any work, in the sense of how work is defined in physics.
 
what does it mean by relative motion between point of contact and ground?
 
iitjee10 said:
what does it mean by relative motion between point of contact and ground?
Should be relative motion at the point of contact with the ground. If the object is slipping, then there is relative motion between the surface of the object and the ground at the point of contact. If the object is purely rolling, then there is zero relative motion between the surface of the object and the ground at the point of contact.

If you're wondering about rolling resistance, it's due to non-elastic (energy lost) deformations at the point of contact.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Why is static friction necessary for pure rolling?
Replies
4
Views
3K
B Trouble understanding what rolling friction is
Replies
9
Views
2K
B Static friction needed for rolling without slipping
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Rolling Motion Test: Take the Challenge and Justify Your Answers
Replies
37
Views
4K
Rolling friction and static friction....
Replies
2
Views
2K
Rolling without slipping down an inclined plane
Replies
41
Views
6K
What forces oppose a car's motion when braking?
Replies
8
Views
4K
I Confused about the axis of rotation in rotational motion w/o slipping
Replies
10
Views
3K
Distance over which friction acts to make object roll
Replies
3
Views
1K
A better understanding of rolling friction
Replies
23
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top