Why is (Kinetic friction)= fk≤fs (Static friction) ?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between kinetic friction and static friction, specifically questioning why kinetic friction is less than or equal to static friction. The original poster expresses understanding of the equality case but seeks clarification on the inequality, as well as the implications of the coefficients of friction.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the reasoning behind the inequality of kinetic and static friction, with references to energy thresholds and surface interactions. There are inquiries about the accuracy of external resources and explanations provided in videos.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing links to external resources and expressing varying levels of confidence in the explanations found. There is no clear consensus, but the conversation is probing deeper into the concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the presence of misinformation in external resources, indicating a need for careful consideration of the information being discussed. The original poster's question reflects a common area of confusion in understanding frictional forces.

andyrk
Messages
658
Reaction score
5
Why is (Kinetic friction)= fk≤fs (Static friction) ? I understood the "equal to" case but how is the "less than" case possible?
Similarly is this related to why is μk≤ μs ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tolove said:
I looked at that, but unfortunately there's about as much misinformation as worthwhile comments there. And I couldn't find any that match what I've always taken to be the explanation: that there's an energy threshold to be overcome.
Imagine e.g. that the two surfaces are made of materials which, if completely flat, would have no friction at all. But instead of being flat, each consists of parallel ripples. At rest, the two sets of ripples interlock. A small amount of energy needs to be invested in lifting the block over the ripples, but that energy is then available to get it over the next ripple, and so on.
It needn't be physical ripples - it could be some electrostatic bonding, but the concept is the same.
So I did a quick search and found this http://www.khanacademy.org/science/...on-on-static-and-kinetic-friction-comparisons
 
haruspex said:
I looked at that, but unfortunately there's about as much misinformation as worthwhile comments there. And I couldn't find any that match what I've always taken to be the explanation: that there's an energy threshold to be overcome.
Imagine e.g. that the two surfaces are made of materials which, if completely flat, would have no friction at all. But instead of being flat, each consists of parallel ripples. At rest, the two sets of ripples interlock. A small amount of energy needs to be invested in lifting the block over the ripples, but that energy is then available to get it over the next ripple, and so on.
It needn't be physical ripples - it could be some electrostatic bonding, but the concept is the same.
So I did a quick search and found this http://www.khanacademy.org/science/...on-on-static-and-kinetic-friction-comparisons

Very interesting video. Do you have an idea of how accurate his presentation is? He ends it by saying that it's still a subject open to discussion.

Thank you for the link!
 
tolove said:
Do you have an idea of how accurate his presentation is?
Only that it jibes with what I thought up myself.
 
Thanks a lot for the link!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
61
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
880
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K