Proof that COF depends only on asperities

  • Thread starter Thread starter ashym
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    friction proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the factors that affect the coefficient of friction (COF), specifically emphasizing the role of asperities and triboforces at material interfaces. The participant seeks to prove that COF is independent of variables like mass, relying on the relationship between frictional force and normal force. They conducted an experiment using ramps of different materials to measure the angle of inclination at which an object begins to slide, questioning the appropriateness of their experimental design. The conversation highlights the importance of using experiments to support or disprove hypotheses, rather than solely relying on mathematical equations. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the need for a clear experimental approach to validate claims about COF.
ashym
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am trying to craft a hypothesis regarding factors that affect the coefficient of friction. I know that it is determined by the triboforces and asperity interactions at the interface between the materials (among other factors, but right now I'm just going to focus on this), but how do I prove it?

Homework Equations


I know F=µFn, and the whole proof that µ=tan theta. One step there goes: µ=ffk/fn = mgsinθ/mgcosθ = sinθ/cosθ=tanθ...does the cancelling of mg that occurs at least prove that mass does not influence COF? Because the only way I can think of proving that COF is independent of everything but the materials in question is via deduction - i.e. by proving that other system variables also have no effect, although I'm not sure if the basic proof above even does that and whether such an approach is possible with other variables. How do I go about this? Do I explain it all conceptually, or is it possible to mathematically support?

The Attempt at a Solution


BTW, the experiment I conducted just involved using ramps made of different materials and elevating it until the object began to slide, at which point I measured the angle of inclination. After taking tan of those values I'll find that the COF varies obviously, but all that proves is that the angle affects the force of friction and I wonder whether the design is even appropriate for what I'm seeking...Everyone conducted their experiments like that and I don't know how the info derived even pertains to the question at hand...do you see anything wrong with this or am I not understanding how to apply it?[/B]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about what experiment is needed to disprove (or support) a given hypothesis.

Proving things with equations is math.

Science is disproving hypotheses with experiments (falsifiability).
 
  • Like
Likes ashym
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top