Optimal Compression for Soccer Balls: Official Circumference and Pressure

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blades0fChaos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ball Compression
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the optimal compression of a soccer ball to maximize friction while ensuring safety, referencing an official circumference of 70 cm and a standard pressure of 13.5 psi. It highlights that the maximum safe pressure for the ball, or burst pressure, is crucial for understanding how much force can be applied without causing damage. While static friction is proportional to the force between surfaces, the safe compression limit is uncertain, with comparisons made to tire pressures. The conversation suggests that further experimentation is needed to accurately assess the relationship between compression and pressure, emphasizing the importance of knowing the burst pressure for safe testing. Overall, understanding the physics of soccer ball compression is essential for both performance and safety.
Blades0fChaos
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
How much should a soccer ball be compressed between 2 objects for it to be safe for the soccer ball but also to maximize the friction between the ball and the objects. The values used for this should be the official circumference of 70 cm and a pressure of 13.5 psi.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, static friction is modeled as proportional to the force between the two surfaces involved. So to maximise friction you need to maximise the force.

Your 'safe for the soccerball' is probably going to be your limiting factor. I really have very little idea how much pressure a football can withstand. But as a tyre has about 30 psi and makes a pretty big noise if they burst I'd say you probably don't want to go above that.

I going to make some further assumptions to get a rough estimate, I wouldn't recommend basing any experiments on these calculations as they could be dangerous.

Assuming the football is a cube, and keeps a constant cross-section (isn't physics great). Compressing it so it's 2/3 it's diameter in the compression direction would reach 27 psi. The 2/3 arises because the pressure you're referring to is pressure with reference to atmospheric, rather than absolute pressure.
 
That helps a lot thanks.

Does anyone know of someone doing an experiment much like this?
 
No, but the critical thing here is the pressure. 13.5 psi is the inflation pressure of the ball, but it isn't the pressure that it can safely withstand (burst pressure). If it were the burst pressure, it would burst the first time someone kicked it. So what you really need to know is the burst pressure. Then when you compress it between two plates, you use geometry to find the new volume and pressure of the ball when a certain force is applied. That's not a simple geometry problem, but it is doable.
 
There's a small chance that a football manufacturer has to do a bursting test for some safety reason...other than that I can't really think why anyone would want to do it!
 
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...
Back
Top