What Forces Influence the Energy Required to Peel Tape?

AI Thread Summary
Peeling tape involves complex interactions of adhesive forces, primarily influenced by Van der Waals forces and chemical adhesion. The energy transformation when peeling tape includes potential strain energy and possibly some heat energy from breaking adhesive bonds. Contrary to initial assumptions, increasing the peeling angle does not necessarily make it easier to remove the tape, suggesting a more intricate relationship between adhesion and peeling dynamics. The compression line observed when peeling tape indicates that the mechanics of adhesion are not straightforward and can lead to unexpected results. Understanding these principles can enhance insights into adhesive behavior and the physics of tape.
jangheej
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I have a question about force needed to peel a tape.

1. If an external force does work on a tape, to what kind of energy is it transformed?
There must be some kind of energy stored in the tape, but I can't think of any.
some papers mention "strain energy", but I don't grasp the concept of it.

2. Where does the adhesive force come from? Is it from Van der waals force?

3. I drew the forces in the attached file, and accordingly, since the vertical component of the external force increases as the theta increases, it must be easier to peel the tape off the surface when the angle increases. But theories and simple experiments show the opposite result. What is wrong with the picture?
 

Attachments

  • force.jpg
    force.jpg
    5.1 KB · Views: 516
Physics news on Phys.org
I may be going a bit out on a limb here, but

1) I imagine there could be small amounts of heat energy released by destroying adhesive bonds

2) It depends on the type of adhesion, for chemical/electrostatic adhesion, I don't think it would be, but I think Van der Waals forces play a small role any time there is an adhesive force between two objects. For something like tape, this role is small compared to the chemical adhesive.

3) I just think the system is a bit more complex that that, I would suggest looking at the point where the tape where the peeling is occurring between the tape and the surface. The angle between the peeled tape and tape stuck to the surface is not perfectly sharp, but rounded. That could have something to do with it.

Hope that helped.
 
jangheej said:
I have a question about force needed to peel a tape.

Peeling tape off a surface is a surprisingly enormously complicated problem. First, adhesion is not that well understood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhesion

Van der Waals forces are often put forward as an explanation, but that's only because Van der Waals forces are a blanket term to describe all intermolecular forces other than electrostatic/electromagnetic ones- that is, it's a catch-all term for 'we don't know the details'.

Here's a simple trick you can do that will thoroughly confuse you-

loosely lay a piece of tape onto a flat surface. A short distance from one end, use your fingernail to press a thin stripe of tape into contact with the surface, creating a line of compression. Then, carefully and slowly peel off the tape- you will see the compression line travel down the length of the tape, ahead of where the tape comes up. How does this happen?

N.A. de Bruyne, The action of adhesives, Scientific American 206 (1962), pp. 114–126

DR.NORMAN A. de BRUYNE "How Glue Sticks" Nature 180, 262-266 (10 August 1957) doi:10.1038/180262a0
 
jangheej said:
I have a question about force needed to peel a tape.

1. If an external force does work on a tape, to what kind of energy is it transformed?
There must be some kind of energy stored in the tape, but I can't think of any.
some papers mention "strain energy", but I don't grasp the concept of it.

2. Where does the adhesive force come from? Is it from Van der waals force?

3. I drew the forces in the attached file, and accordingly, since the vertical component of the external force increases as the theta increases, it must be easier to peel the tape off the surface when the angle increases. But theories and simple experiments show the opposite result. What is wrong with the picture?

Are you sure about your conclusion to number three?I suggest you try it out.
You may get some useful information by googling "triboluminescence".
 
Try this...
take a dry erase board and derive maxwells equations from first principles.
When done , take the dry erase eraser and erase the board. While still holding the eraser
touch something electricialy grounded. The spark you see represents the electrostatic
energy which was holding the ink onto the board.
(If you try it without ink, no spark. )
Try it...
Tim
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top