I Stribeck v.s. Coulomb friction law

AI Thread Summary
Coulomb's law describes dry friction, while Stribeck's law focuses on lubricated friction, represented by the Stribeck curve. This curve illustrates different lubrication regimes, indicating whether surfaces are in contact or separated by a hydrodynamic film, which significantly reduces friction and wear. The discovery that lubricated surfaces could be entirely separated was pivotal in the field of tribology, leading to advancements in bearing design and lubrication. An anecdote highlights the immense forces involved in hydrodynamic films, showcasing the challenges of replicating historical experiments in tribology. Understanding these friction laws is crucial for improving mechanical efficiency and longevity.
qnach
Messages
144
Reaction score
4
TL;DR Summary
Compare Stribeck and Columb law
The friction law I learnt in high-school is Coulomb law, to my understanding.
But what is Stribeck law? What is the difference from Coulomb's law?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems that the Stribeck law is a law firm concerning real estate located in Indianapolis... ;)

There is a Stribeck curve though. Coulomb's law is about dry friction. Stribeck's curve is about lubricated friction. The curve tells you in what lubrication regime you are, whether the surfaces still make contact, whether the surfaces are fully separated by a hydrodynamic film (very low friction and wear!) or somewhere in between.

That it was possible for lubricated surfaces to be separated entirely was kind of a big deal when first discovered. It means that with proper design and lubrication the wear and tear on bearings dramatically decreases. This is how the field of tribology came about (more or less, I'm not a historian ;)).

Some anecdote I remember from my study:
The forces involved in the hydrodynamic film are enormous by the way. I remember how my tribology professor tried to replicate an experiment done during the time of this discovery. There was a flat surface with a rather large and heavy (think 100/200kg) cylindrical surface on top of it. In the center of that cylindrical surface there was a hole in which lubricant could be added. (I also vaguely remember that the contact surfaces were somehow etched with some spiral shape to draw the lubricant under the cylinder, but I'm not entirely sure). To get the cylinder rotating on the surface was hard to start, but once going the cylinder would just go on an on.
At the same time lubricant would run out of that hole in the center of the cylinder. As the story goes the experimenter (not my professor, he tried to replicate this) tried to stop the lubricant to come out. Eventually he hammered some kind of cork or wooden peg into the hole with some force. After rotating a bit that peg came out with a huge BANG shooting the peg into the ceiling of the room!
Unfortunately my professor was never able to replicate this properly...
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Vanadium 50, nasu, PeroK and 1 other person
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top