Not really a equation? finding friction

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter physicsgurl12
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Friction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around methods to find the coefficient of friction for a car using a stopwatch, exploring both static and kinetic friction. Participants consider practical approaches, potential safety concerns, and the physics underlying frictional forces in the context of a project involving braking tests.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using a stopwatch to measure the time it takes for a car to stop from an initial speed to calculate the coefficient of kinetic friction.
  • Others argue that the method of measuring static friction should be considered, noting that static friction is typically higher than kinetic friction.
  • One participant explains that the maximum static friction can be determined by measuring the maximum deceleration without slipping and dividing by the weight of the car.
  • Concerns are raised about the safety of conducting such experiments, especially regarding the potential for neck injuries during hard braking.
  • Some participants discuss the importance of understanding whether the wheels are slipping or not, with various conditions affecting this state.
  • There is mention of using cruise control for achieving a consistent initial speed for the experiment.
  • Participants express differing views on the safety of the experiment, with some downplaying the risks associated with emergency braking tests.
  • One participant notes that the impulse versus time may be more relevant than acceleration alone when considering neck injuries from sudden stops.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the methods to measure friction, the safety of the proposed experiment, and the relevance of static versus kinetic friction. No consensus is reached on the best approach or the safety implications of the experiment.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss various assumptions related to the conditions of the experiment, such as the need for accurate initial speed and the potential for wheel slipping. The conversation includes unresolved concerns about safety and the physical implications of braking forces.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students or enthusiasts in physics, automotive engineering, or anyone considering practical experiments related to friction and braking dynamics.

physicsgurl12
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
how would you find the coefficient of friction on a car using a stopwatch??
i was trying to use this webite ( i didnt really help explain anything) to help it says you should get about .9 but i really want to know how.
http://regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys01/friction/default.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
physicsgurl12 said:
how would you find the coefficient of friction on a car using a stopwatch??
i was trying to use this webite ( i didnt really help explain anything) to help it says you should get about .9 but i really want to know how.
http://regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys01/friction/default.htm


Depends, whether it is static friction on kinetic friction
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see how a stopwatch would help.

While the wheels are not slipping (which is usual for a car), the acceleration times mass of the car must be provided by the friction force between the tyres and the road. We have a limit for the max force provided by static friction, which is f_{max} = \mu_s F_N, where F_N is the normal force (equal to the weight of the car usually). So if the acceleration times mass of the car breaks this limit, the force of static friction is no longer enough to keep the tyres from slipping.

So to measure the coefficient of static friction, you could measure the maximum of 'mass times deceleration' without the tyres slipping, and divide by the weight of the car.
Of course, there will be much more accurate ways of measuring static friction. But this is one way that any tom, dick or harry could do. (Although I don't advise wearing out your tyres by doing this experiment).
 
Take the time it takes for the car to stop from an initial speed with brakes maximally engaged.
\mu_k = {v \over g \cdot t}


(This measures the coefficient of kinetic friction.)
 
Oh, I see. Yes, you could use a stopwatch to measure the coefficient of kinetic friction.
 
why do you find kinetic and not static??
 
An estimate of the static coefficient of friction could be made when braking maximally without locking the wheels.
 
physicsgurl12 said:
why do you find kinetic and not static??

Kinetic friction is when the wheels slip on the pavement.
Static friction is when the wheels do not slip.
The maximum static friction is higher than the kinetic friction.
 
Yes. There are two equations.
1) if the wheels are not slipping: f_{max}=\mu_s F_N
2) if the wheels are slipping: f=\mu_k F_N
 
  • #10
okay well how do you know if the wheels slip??
 
  • #11
For the wheels to not slip, the horizontal force on the entire car must be provided by the friction force. In other words, as long as f_{max} \geq m \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}
then the wheels will not slip. the horizontal acceleration will be due to braking. So as long as you don't brake too hard, the wheels won't slip!
 
  • #12
You will know because suddenly you start gliding, and it makes you feel out of control! Assuming you do not have an anti-blocking-system (ABS) of course.
 
  • #13
I like Serena said:
You will know because suddenly you start gliding, and it makes you feel out of control! Assuming you do not have an anti-blocking-system (ABS) of course.

haha thanks! that helps a lot.
 
  • #14
would you use cruise control for you initial velocity??
 
  • #15
physicsgurl12 said:
would you use cruise control for you initial velocity??

That's probably best to start from an accurate initial speed.
Or at least from a reproducible initial speed.
 
  • #16
Is she actually doing this 'experiment'??! Haha, be careful!
 
  • #17
If you drive 10 miles per hour and lock the wheels, you're guaranteed to stop within 2 meters.
That should be safe enough.
After that you can try it a little faster to be able to make a better time measurement.

Btw, you can also use the stopping distance to calculate the coefficient of kinetic friction.
\mu_k = {v^2 \over 2 \cdot g \cdot x}
 
  • #18
yes. I am actually doing it. i have to. its a project.
 
  • #19
physicsgurl12 said:
yes. I am actually doing it. i have to. its a project.

Sounds like fun! :smile:

When will you do it?
 
  • #20
after thanksgiving break. so the week after next.
 
  • #21
Will you tell us how it goes?
 
  • #22
if i remember to!
 
  • #23
I'll remind you!
 
  • #24
is this going to be an actual person sitting inside a real car? Isn't there a danger of serious neck injuries? Because you need to brake pretty hard to make the wheels slip?!

Better check your health insurance covers this kind of thing!
 
  • #25
I think you're exagerating here.
Where I live it is required to do an emergency brake test when you get your driver's license.
It can happen that the wheels lock.
The maximum acceleration is "only" less than 1G.
This is very different from being unexpectedly hit from behind with 30+ miles per hour.
 
  • #26
Hmm, the jerk is probably more important. The change in acceleration would be roughly 1G, but what time does this change occur over? I don't know the answer, and I don't know what is a safe level.

You're probably right though, since I don't think people often get whiplash from simply braking. I was just thinking that she would probably need to do the experiment at least a dozen times to get sufficient repeats, and that sounds painful.
 
  • #27
I believe jerk it not the most relevant - but impulse versus time.
Basically this is simply acceleration.
If the impulse is spread over a longer time (seat belts, airbag), the acceleration is less.

The neck can only withstand a limited acceleration, but certainly more than 1G, especially if you expect it.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Acceleration is not important. Think of astronauts in training. They are subjected to high accelerations gradually, and the only thing that happens to them is that they eventually lose consciousness. They don't damage their necks. It is the higher derivatives that cause neck damage.

In other words, if neck damage were to be caused by a roughly constant acceleration, it would need to be really great.
 
  • #29
Let's make it a combination of jerk and acceleration.

An (unexpected) quick change of acceleration can break your neck.
A high enough acceleration of the car can also break your neck.

Both do not occur when making an emergency stop.
 
  • #30
@BruceW: Congratulations with your HH medal! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K