The cause of Friction between objects

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ron_jay
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cause Friction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of friction between objects, exploring whether it arises from electromagnetic interactions or the physical characteristics of surfaces, such as minute ridges and roughness. Participants delve into theoretical models, practical implications, and examples related to friction, bonding, and surface interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that friction is primarily electromagnetic in nature, suggesting that atomic attractions between surfaces contribute significantly to frictional forces.
  • Others argue that surface roughness and contamination play critical roles in determining the coefficient of friction, with minute ridges affecting interactions at the molecular level.
  • A participant suggests a potential model for friction that incorporates bond strength, roughness, and contamination, although they express doubt about its completeness.
  • There are claims that under ideal conditions, such as perfectly smooth and clean surfaces, materials can bond through vacuum welding, although practical challenges are acknowledged.
  • Some participants question the feasibility of bonding through simple contact, citing examples from engineering and practical applications where vacuum welding occurs.
  • Discussion includes a comparison of phase changes like melting and freezing to the processes involved in bonding and friction, with some participants exploring the energy dynamics involved.
  • Concerns are raised about the fundamental nature of atomic interactions, particularly regarding electron repulsion preventing direct contact between atoms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the primary causes of friction, with no consensus reached on whether electromagnetic forces or surface characteristics are more significant. The discussion remains unresolved on several points, particularly regarding the conditions under which materials may bond.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on idealized conditions for bonding and friction, as well as the complexity of interactions at the atomic level that may not be fully captured in proposed models.

ron_jay
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
One of the most puzzling things yet useful is friction.Although we haven't totally understood it very well, we have certain equations for them

F(limiting)=[tex]\mu[/tex]N
[as F(limiting) is directly proportional to the weight of the body)

But, what is the main cause of this force, Is it because of the interaction of the minute ridges and disturbances or is it electromagnetic in nature.If it is electromagnetic in nature we yet don't have a concrete equation for it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's electromagnetic.
When you put two pieces of material together ,the atoms on the surface on one are just as strongly attracted to the surface of the other piece as they are to their neighbours.
In fact if you put two very smooth surfaces with no oil and dirt together they can vacuum weld into one piece.

You can probably model the degree of atraction given the surfacr roughness and bond strength of the material but in reality it would be strongly effected by any surface contamination.
 
mgb_phys said:
It's electromagnetic.
When you put two pieces of material together ,the atoms on the surface on one are just as strongly attracted to the surface of the other piece as they are to their neighbours.
In fact if you put two very smooth surfaces with no oil and dirt together they can vacuum weld into one piece.

You can probably model the degree of atraction given the surfacr roughness and bond strength of the material but in reality it would be strongly effected by any surface contamination.

You mean, if I cut an iron rod into two, and if I put the two pieces together, with nothing absolutely in between, they will become one piece again?
 
Yes if the edges were smooth and clean enough!
In practice the iron would have deformed plastically so the ends don't match up and you would have layers of oxidation, atmospheric pollution and dust on them almost instantly.

It is a very real problem in making machines that work in vacuum where it is hard to keep oil/grease on surfaces and in high precision optics where you put very flat and extremely clean surfaces together.
 
that's fair enough to say that they would come together if those conditions of no dust etc. are met with. If we know that it is electromagnetic in nature, we should then be able to furnish a complete equation which includes all the various factors.According to what you said that the factors are dependent on bond strength of the material, the surface roughness and contamination then:

Bond strength - [tex]\mu[/tex]
Roughness coefficient - [tex]\alpha[/tex]
contamination coefficient - [tex]\beta[/tex]
and a certain constant - K

therefore, Friction(F)= K[tex]\mu[/tex] [tex]\alpha[/tex] [tex]\beta[/tex]

Could this be?(I doubt)
 
mgb_phys said:
It's electromagnetic.
When you put two pieces of material together ,the atoms on the surface on one are just as strongly attracted to the surface of the other piece as they are to their neighbours.
In fact if you put two very smooth surfaces with no oil and dirt together they can vacuum weld into one piece.

You can probably model the degree of atraction given the surfacr roughness and bond strength of the material but in reality it would be strongly effected by any surface contamination.

I remember a teacher 'cutting' a ice block that was suspended on its ends in two with a weighted piano wire and the weighted wire dropped to the floor after going through the ice block, but the ice remained a 'block' and still suspended on its ends.

(not quite the same as an iron rod, but...)
 
yes this is all good saying that in theory this could happen in the perfect conditions ... but we all know that every atom can Never come in contact with an other. the negitive electrons on the out side of every atom will repell the elctrons of an other so they will never touch.
 
rewebster said:
I remember a teacher 'cutting' a ice block that was suspended on its ends in two with a weighted piano wire and the weighted wire dropped to the floor after going through the ice block, but the ice remained a 'block' and still suspended on its ends.
That's not the same thing, the metling point of ice decreases under pressure so when the wire presses down a thin small line of ice melts under the wire and the refreezes above it after the wire passes through the water.
This is how skates work, they can move easily because they are actually running on a thin layer of water between the ice and the blade.
It is possible to be too cold to ski - when the pressure from the blade isn't enough to lower the melting point below he ambient temperature.
 
mgb_phys said:
That's not the same thing, the metling point of ice decreases under pressure so when the wire presses down a thin small line of ice melts under the wire and the refreezes above it after the wire passes through the water.
This is how skates work, they can move easily because they are actually running on a thin layer of water between the ice and the blade.
It is possible to be too cold to ski - when the pressure from the blade isn't enough to lower the melting point below he ambient temperature.

what is 'melting' and 'refreezing' actually though?
 
  • #10
A phase change (the technical term for melting/freezing) and forming new surfaces are similair in some ways.
In melting kinetic energy is needed to overcome the already formed bonds and allow the material to become disordered. In breaking something you have to put in energy to create surfaces.
Beyond that the energy behaviour and the equations are different enough that it isn't a very useful analogy - good thinking though!
 
  • #11
but the iron was cut -not broken
 
  • #12
Minute ridges or electromagnetic forces
Both are factors. Most surfaces aren't that smooth at the molecular level, and there are pits and valleys in the surfaces of most materials, and this affects the coefficient of friction. As mentioned on this link, the surface condition is very important.

http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/frictioncoeff.htm

As far as bonding from simple contact, I'm not sure if there are any solids that do this. If you place a steel block on a steel plate, there will be friction, but the two pieces will not bond to become a single piece.
 
  • #13
As far as bonding from simple contact, I'm not sure if there are any solids that do this. If you place a steel block on a steel plate, there will be friction, but the two pieces will not bond to become a single piece.
Try telling that to Nasa engineers trying to persuade antennae to unfold after they vac welded together, or someone who just out two very expensive lamba/50 optical flats together.

It is deliberately used to make extremely accurate items such as hollow cubes used to measure density standards - it's a good way of joining pieces without inducing any deformation or stresses.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Jeff Reid said:
As far as bonding from simple contact, I'm not sure if there are any solids that do this. If you place a steel block on a steel plate, there will be friction, but the two pieces will not bond to become a single piece.

mgb_phys said:
Try telling that to Nasa engineers trying to persuade antennae to unfold after they vac welded together, or someone who just out two very expenive lamba/20 optical flats together. It is deliberately used to make extremely accurate items such as hollow cubes used to measure density standards - it's a good way of joining pieces without inducing any deformation or stresses.

So there are some subtances, as posted, I wasn't sure if any solids do this. Glass is a special case, though since glass isn't considered to be a normal solid (it deforms slowly over time, so it's in a partial liquid state). Still the case of the vac welded antennas seems to be an example.

So why don't most solids bond from contact?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K