Why Does Friction Act in the Direction of Motion for a Rolling Wheel?

AI Thread Summary
Friction acts to oppose slipping between surfaces, which can lead to confusion regarding its direction in rolling objects. For a wheel rolling without slipping, the point of contact with the ground is momentarily at rest, meaning static friction is at play. If the wheel rolls to the right, the friction force at the contact point actually acts to the right as well, facilitating motion rather than opposing it. This dynamic can differ if the wheel is accelerating or moving at a constant speed, where static friction may be zero. Understanding these principles clarifies the role of friction in rolling motion.
gzg
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi. A friend of mine asked me an interesting question a couple of days ago and I've been thinking for several days but I cannot find a logical answer since I'm not taking any physics course in university. I typed physics forum in google to find the logic of the question and found here.

The question is sth like that:

We know the direction of friction force is opposite to direction of motion but let's assume just a wheel moving to right-side in a 2D world. We're expected that the direction of friction force is left-side but it didn't work like that. At the point where wheel and ground touch each other, the wheel seems like moving left; so the direction of friction force will be right-side. So it means the friction force is seen as a positive force for motion, since the direction of wheel's motion and the direction of friction force are both right-side. How could it be possible?

Finally, sorry if I wrote a word or a sentence mistake. English is not my native.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

I'm not sure I follow all the details in your descriptions, but you should know, that there are primarily two types of friction forces. Static friction which allow shearing forces between two objects that are not moving relative to each other and dynamic friction which is when there is relative motion. Usually wheels, like wheels on a car, are modeled as either rolling without slipping (using static friction) or rolling with slipping (dynamic friction). Your case seems to involve rolling without slipping?

When there is dynamical friction at play between two objects in relative motion, it is true that the friction force on each object is opposite the relative motion with respect to the other object. So if you slide a block to the right across the floor, the dynamic friction force acting on the block is pointing left and the friction force acting on the floor (which can be seen as moving left relative to the block) is pointing right. Thus the two friction forces (the one acting on the block and the one acting on the floor) are equal but in opposite direction.
 
gzg said:
We know the direction of friction force is opposite to direction of motion
That's not true. What is true is that friction opposes slipping between surfaces.
but let's assume just a wheel moving to right-side in a 2D world. We're expected that the direction of friction force is left-side but it didn't work like that. At the point where wheel and ground touch each other, the wheel seems like moving left; so the direction of friction force will be right-side. So it means the friction force is seen as a positive force for motion, since the direction of wheel's motion and the direction of friction force are both right-side. How could it be possible?
Let's assume that the wheel is rolling without slipping along a horizontal surface, so the only friction we need to consider is static friction. (We'll ignore the complication of 'rolling' friction, due to surface deformation.) Note that the point of the wheel in contact with the surface is (momentarily) at rest with respect to the surface.

Is the wheel accelerating? If the wheel is moving at constant speed, then the static friction at the point of contact will be zero.
 
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