Why does friction remain constant with larger surface area?

AI Thread Summary
Frictional force is independent of the contact area, as described by the equation F=μN, where area does not factor in. The confusion arises from the belief that larger surface areas lead to more interlocking of surface irregularities, which would suggest increased friction. However, with a constant mass, a larger surface area distributes the weight over more area, reducing the pressure on each unit area. This results in a constant frictional force regardless of surface area. Understanding this principle clarifies why friction remains constant despite changes in contact area.
takando12
Messages
122
Reaction score
5
My books and my teachers tell me that the frictional force is independent of the area of contact. I am also aware of the equation F=μN and that area has no part in it. But it's just so confusing and counter-intuitive.
Friction is because of the the interlocking of the irregularities of two surfaces (At least that's what i think it is). So doesn't more area mean , more interlocking and hence more friction?
Please do help me understand this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For an object whose mass is constant and shape can be deformed, the larger the one of the object's surfaces is, the less the gravity that unit area carries gets, so the frictional force remains also remains constant.
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Dependence of friction on area.
Replies
6
Views
2K
Frictional force and surface area in contact
Replies
12
Views
5K
Why does an increase in surface area lead to a reduction in pressure?
Replies
6
Views
2K
B Why does ice have more friction when it's solid compared to when it's melting?
Replies
11
Views
2K
B Questions about momentum and force as well as normal force/friction
Replies
35
Views
4K
Friction on a flat rotating surface
Replies
4
Views
4K
Friction Independent of Area: Understand It Here
Replies
10
Views
2K
I What is the acceleration at the contact point between a wheel and surface?
Replies
17
Views
3K
Friction torque vs. contact area
Replies
6
Views
9K
Why does it get harder with time to rotate a screw?
Replies
7
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top