Why static friction is directely proposnal to normalreaction

AI Thread Summary
Static friction is directly proportional to the normal reaction force, but this relationship is not absolute, as static friction can vary from zero to a maximum value just before motion occurs. The actual area of contact between surfaces is much smaller than the measured surface area due to microscopic interactions, which affect the frictional force. Static friction arises primarily from adhesive forces between atoms at the contact points, and the normal force influences the area of contact by compressing surface irregularities. While the maximum static friction is proportional to the normal force multiplied by the coefficient of static friction, the actual static friction can equal the applied force up to that maximum. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurately assessing frictional forces in various scenarios.
akashpandey
Messages
90
Reaction score
4
I want to know why
Static friction∝normal reaction and
Why not
Static friction∝ area of surface
Static friction∝weight
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(1) The 'laws' of friction are only approximately true. They are not fundamental laws of Physics.
(2) The total area of contact is usually far smaller than the measured surface area. This is because, on a microscopic scale, the surfaces don't actually touch, except in certain places.
(3) The total area of contact is not determined so much by the measured surface area as by the normal component of force between the surfaces, as this is what causes permanent or temporary squashing of 'high spots' in contact with the other surface, making the area of contact larger.
(4) The frictional force itself arises usually, I believe, from adhesive forces between atoms in the two surfaces. In some cases there may be penetration of 'high spots' on one surface into the other surface.

Hope this helps. I'm no expert, so let's hope someone else steps in...
 
In addition to Phips Wood's comments,

You wrote,
akashpandey said:
Static friction∝normal reaction

A reference describing static friction is here,
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/frict2.html

Static friction is applicable when the object is not moving against another surface. And no, it is not proportional to the normal force as static friction can be anything from 0 ( such as a book resting on a table ) to a maximum ( just before it begins to move if you are attempting to push the book sideways with your hand ). The MAXIMUM value of static friction would be proportional to the normal force multiplied by the coefficient of static friction, but below that, the static friction is just equal to your pushing force. ( we should say,the net sideways force acting on the book since all forces should be taken into consideration )

The other type of friction when there is relative motion between surfaces is called kinetic friction ( just move down a bit on the site where it describes kinetic friction ).

You wrote,
akashpandey said:
Static friction∝weight
The normal force can be a function of the object's weight, but not necessarily as a direct proportionality function. Also there may be other forces acting on the object other than just the weight of the object.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics )
Friction ( ie the maximum static and the kinetic friction ) are thus considered instead to be a direct function of the normal force, through the proportionality coefficient, called the coefficient of static friction or the coefficient of kinetic friction, as the case may be.

Thus, if one can find out the normal force acting on the body, one can thus use the direct proportionality to find the friction forces.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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...
Back
Top