Ok, a little shoe experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Winner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion revolves around an experiment to measure the coefficient of static friction for two types of shoes: runners and formal dress shoes. The experiment utilizes a wooden cherry board, a protractor, and a scale to determine the angle at which each shoe slips. The calculated coefficients of static friction are 0.903 for runners and 0.659 for dress shoes, confirming that runners have a greater coefficient of static friction. Participants confirmed that mass cancels out in the calculations, and the length of the board does not affect the results as long as the angle is accurately measured.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of static friction and its formula (F=uN)
  • Knowledge of trigonometric functions, particularly sine and cosine
  • Familiarity with basic physics concepts such as weight (mg) and inclined planes
  • Experience with measuring angles using a protractor
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of the angle of repose and its relation to static friction
  • Learn about the effects of surface area on frictional forces
  • Explore advanced friction measurement techniques using different materials
  • Investigate the impact of shoe design on friction coefficients
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, experimental researchers, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of friction and its practical applications in footwear design.

Winner
Messages
94
Reaction score
8
Ok, a little experiment!

Ok, so I want to test the coefficient of static friction for two different kinds of shoes. I'll be using a runners and a formal dress shoe. Is this an ok procedure? :rolleyes:

I'll using a wooden cherry board, and placing that against a wall. I'll slowly increase the angle of the board until the shoe in question slips. I'll measure the angle by placing a piece of paper at the side of the board and using a protractor. I'll do this a few times for each shoe to get an avg angle. I'll also have a scale for weighing the shoes. Hope you see what I'm trying to do here :smile: Then I'm lost...


So to summarize:

What I have to work with:

board
two kinds of shoe soles
protractor
paper
scale

Now, my question is: the formula for static friction is F=uN. How can I find the u when I have two unknowns? I know N=mg, which I have but what about F?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
When uN = mg Sin(theta), the shoe will slip. That's assuming you're not using a shoe horn. -Dave
 
N is not mg on an inclined plane.
 
right, thanks for that. Ok so I think I can find the Friction using the angle as in Wsin@=F, kinda like what Poncho said. I don't get what Poncho said in the second part though? Are you saying that when the backward force (friction) is equal to the forward force that the shoe will slip? I thought that if the friciton force is less than the forward driving force, the shoe will slip...
 
Päällikkö said:
N is not mg on an inclined plane.


So N is then just N=mgcos@. I see.
 
Just a suggestion, you may be able to get a better angle measurement by measuing the length of your ramp, and its height on the wall. The ratio H/L = sin(\theta)
 
Ahhh, thanks lol. Protractor...what was I thinking!
 
Ok so I carried out the experiment: :cool:

Code:
	Runners	Dress Shoes
Trial 	 Height of board before slip (H)	Height of board before slip (H)
1	59.9	                                                  48.5
2	57.6	                                                  48
3	58.5	                                                  48.1

Avgerage Height	58.7	                                     48.2
Angle (sin@=H/L)	42.1	                                     33.4

Length of Board: 87.6 cm
Mass of Shoes (g)
Runner:400g
Dress shoe: 480g

Ok so the data seems to make sense, I mean runners probably have greater coefficient of static friction.

Now, getting back to calculating u:

So, F=uN

and F=mgsin@
and N=mgcos@

Result: mgsin@=mgcos@ x u
since the mg's cancel out, all I need get u is sin@/cos@=u.

For the runners that is 0.903
For the dress shoes it's 0.659.

Ok, did I do this right? The results make sense, but just want to make sure. :confused:

**I didn't use mass anywhere b/c they cancelled...is that right?
**I didn't use a 1 meter board as I was supposed to...does that matter really?

Thanks all.
 
Last edited:
This can be simplified by assuming the shoe is in the shape of a sphere... :smile:
 
  • #10
Huh? lol I don't get it ;p. Did I at least do it somewhat correct?
 
  • #11
Agnostic said:
This can be simplified by assuming the shoe is in the shape of a sphere... :smile:

That's funny, but I think in this case it would actually complicate the problem.
 
  • #12
My god, common guys. Mu=tan(theta). Thats it, no more work involved! Its called the angle of repose, and is equal to the angle of static friciton. Experiment DONE. Doc is right, measure the length base and alittude to get a more accurate tangent.

This can be simplified by assuming the shoe is in the shape of a sphere...

Friction is INDEPENDENT of the surface area of contact, when impending motion occurs.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
A simple way to test whether the coefficient of friction is indepedent of mass is to put something heavy in one of the shoes and to see if it slips at the same angle.

The length of the board doesn't matter as long as you're still finding the proper angle from the true length of the board and the height of the end of the board.
 
  • #14
lol, all this is great discussion but did my results make sense is all I'm asking?
 
  • #15
since the mg's cancel out, all I need get u is sin@/cos@=u.

100% correct.

For the runners that is 0.903
For the dress shoes it's 0.659.

Sounds good, dress shoes are smooth on the bottom.

**I didn't use mass anywhere b/c they cancelled...is that right?

Correct.

**I didn't use a 1 meter board as I was supposed to...does that matter really?

nope.
 
  • #16
Thank you :) I'm at peace now lol.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
10K