Question about static friction and energy loss

AI Thread Summary
Static friction can cause both acceleration and deceleration of objects, but it does not perform work in the traditional sense. When a car slows down due to static friction between the tires and the ground, the kinetic energy is transformed into internal energy, such as heat in the brake pads. An example discussed involves a box on a braking truck, where static friction prevents slipping and results in the box decelerating. The mechanical energy lost by the box is converted into internal energy within the truck system. Overall, static friction facilitates deceleration without energy loss, redirecting energy into internal forms.
physicsisgrea
Messages
25
Reaction score
1
I know static friction can cause an object to accelerate, but also decelerate.
And i also know that static friction never cause energy loss, but I wonder when it causes an object to decelerate, its kinetic energy should decrease, so where is the mechanical energy gone? Has static friction done work on the object? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please give a specific example of what you have in mind.

For example, a car slowing down. Assuming the tires do not slip, it is static friction from the ground that slows the car. (Ignoring air resistance, etc.) But that static friction does no work. The mechanical energy of the car has gone into internal energy within the car (the brake pads, for example).
 
My textbook says
When a box is placed on a traveling truck , and then the truck brakes to stop, the deceleration of the box is because of the static friction. (There is no sliping occurs)

I am confused because the box's K.E. should decrease to zero, and I have no idea how and where the mechanical energy is taken away. Is it converted into internal energy of the box?
 
physicsisgrea said:
My textbook says
When a box is placed on a traveling truck , and then the truck brakes to stop, the deceleration of the box is because of the static friction. (There is no sliping occurs)
OK.

I am confused because the box's K.E. should decrease to zero, and I have no idea how and where the mechanical energy is taken away. Is it converted into internal energy of the box?
The box's KE does go to zero when the truck stops. You can just think of the box and just another part of the truck. All of that mechanical energy ends up as internal energy within the truck.
 
Doc Al said:
OK.


The box's KE does go to zero when the truck stops. You can just think of the box and just another part of the truck. All of that mechanical energy ends up as internal energy within the truck.

Thank you so much !:)
 
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top