Why rolling is less than kinetic

  • Thread starter Thread starter prasanna
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Kinetic Rolling
AI Thread Summary
Rolling friction is less than kinetic friction because the point of contact during rolling experiences an angled velocity, resulting in reduced frictional force. Kinetic friction is less than static friction because more force is required to initiate movement than to maintain it, reflecting the nature of static friction's maximum threshold. This phenomenon occurs because if the applied force exceeds static friction, the object will accelerate towards the force, which is counterintuitive. Some materials may exhibit equal static and kinetic friction, but this is rare. Overall, the relationship between these friction types aligns with practical experiences and physical laws.
prasanna
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
The order is
rolling < kinetic < Static.

I understand why rolling is less than kinetic(Sliding).
When a body rolls, the velocity of the point of contact is directed at an angle from the surface. Hence, the friction acts at an angle. Hence, rolling < kinetic. Am I right??

Why is kinetic < Static?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Friction is calculated by:

F_f={\mu}F_N
{\mu}=\frac{F_f}{F_N}

Since you need to apply more force to an object to make it start moving than you do to keep it moving, Ff would be larger for a static mu than for a kinetic mu, making the fraction value larger for a calculated static coefficient.
 
Why should you need more force to start an object than to keep it moving?
 
prasanna said:
Why should you need more force to start an object than to keep it moving?
1) Well, it really is unphysical if it were strictly otherwise:
Think if you pushed a non-moving object with EXACTLY the force maximum static friction can produce (is).
Static friction then yields, and kinetic friction takes over the stage:
But if that force EXCEEDS maximum static friction (and, hence, your own pushing force), the object would start accelerating TOWARDS you rather than AWAY from you.
That doesn't seem likely, or what? :wink:
2) But, you could ask:
Why couldn't maximum static friction be EQUAL in magnitude to kinetic friction?
The answer to that is:
It might well be, and certain material DO have that property almost realized
(I think teflon is one of those material, but beware: I am not sure on that point!)
3) Lastly, let's look at the significance of kinetic friction being almost always strictly less than maximal static friction:
Assume that your pushing force just balances maximal static friction (is greater than it by an ARBITRARILY SMALL quantity if you like!) :
Friction then switches into kinetic, and Newton's 2.law states, in the horizontal, flat contact surface case:
\mu_{s}mg-\mu_{k}mg=ma_{0}
(where \mu_{s},\mu_{k} are friction coefficients, m mass of object, a_{0} (initial) acceleration, and g acceleration of gravity.

That is, given any pushing force strictly GREATER than maximal static friction, the acceleration "a" it produces necessarily obeys the inequality:
a\geq{a}_{0}=(\mu_{s}-\mu_{k})g&gt;0
That is, the object starts moving with a JOLT, not smoothly.
(That can only be realized in the case where the coefficients of friction are EQUAL, where we can get ARBITRARILY SMALL initial accelerations)

If you think about it, that's a fairly good modelling of our experience.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top