Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But a smoother surface allso causes less friction then a rough surface. (mostly, because friction is a really really strange thing)Originally posted by dChan@Apr 18 2007, 06:37 PM
lol. Less surface area means less friction. Haven't you guys watched the Magic School Bus? Or have a science class?
Sorry, but you're wrong. Friction is proportional to the properties of the two surfaces in contact, as well as the force being exerted between them. It is has nothing to do with surface area. I don't know much about skating, but with a longer skate you exert the same force over a larger area, which reduces the pressure. Stuff happens at the contact between the skate and the ice, such as the ice momentarily melting due to the pressure, so this isn't a good example for looking at just friction.Originally posted by dChan@Apr 18 2007, 08:58 PM
Locking up is not due to friction, it is due to you increasing the chance by x% for it to lockup because you removed the peice.
Now to address the iceskating concept: This is a different concept, not friction. The longer the skate, the more surfae the skater can use to exert on the ice and increase his power. A smaller skate has less surface to exert on the ice and thus is unstable and doesn't allow the user to push away from his starting position. Skater A with a longer blade is better because he can use more power but that does not mean he has less friction- it just means he is able to use more power to overcome the friction.
Put your hand flat across a table and try to simultaneously push down and move it forward with your hand flat. Now do it with one finger. The smaller surface area of the finger can move much easier.
The Rubik's Cube is a tool- and all tools lose work that the user inputs due to friction. Therefore by reducing the pieces' surface area, less work is need to do work on the cube. Which increases its work efficiency.
You sort of said what I said. If friction is proportional to the properties of the two surfaces in contact, then the less contact the two surfaces have, the less the friction? Isn't that what you are saying?Originally posted by Arakron@Apr 18 2007, 01:14 PM
Sorry, but you're wrong. Friction is proportional to the properties of the two surfaces in contact, as well as the force being exerted between them. It is has nothing to do with surface area. I don't know much about skating, but with a longer skate you exert the same force over a larger area, which reduces the pressure. Stuff happens at the contact between the skate and the ice, such as the ice momentarily melting due to the pressure, so this isn't a good example for looking at just friction.
As for the hand on table example, you can put your whole weight behind your hand if it's your palm/heel of your hand. You can't push as hard through your finger - ask someone who can do a handstand to go on the tips of their fingers, or try to do a pushup on just your fingers. And those examples are 5 times less extreme, since there are 5 fingers rather than 1.
Long story short, friction is dependent only on the surfaces and the forces, not the surface area. As for the question at hand of the corner caps, the post before me is right on.
No, the properties of the surfaces are what they're made of. The frictional force is equal to the force between the two objects (normal force) multiplied by a number called the coefficient of friction, which is a constant for the two materials in contact. So a teflon-teflon contact has the lowest coefficient of friction. Sandpaper-sandpaper is very high. But with the same force between them, the area of the contact does not change the friction.Originally posted by dChan@Apr 18 2007, 09:18 PM
You sort of said what I said. If friction is proportional to the properties of the two surfaces in contact, then the less contact the two surfaces have, the less the friction? Isn't that what you are saying?