How do I reduce surface friction? Which surface would have less friction A or B? I want to reduce friction between two surfaces so I can pull an object across as easily as possible.
>>8200446
Depends. Are we talking about molecular levels of smoothness, or only macroscopic?
>>8200526
>macroscopic
yes
It is on the tongues surface. I am looking to reduce friction on the tongue for a project
depends on the other surface. If you had two Bs zig to zag, thats a lot, even more that A to A if the zipper pattern is extreme enough. Assuming our domain of discorse is the two named sides in OPs pic, A to B / B to A would result in the least friction
But the real question is why is it important to also state the 'B to A' in addition to 'A to B' :^)
>>8200550
10^7 years
Thanks everyone, I had a new idea that's better and it's in /diy/ >>>/diy/1022013
>>8200446
>I want to reduce friction between two surfaces so I can pull an object across as easily as possible.
Use a different combination of surfaces. The shape of the bottom of your surface does not matter as long as your surfaces aren't interlocking and getting stuck in eachother.
F_friction = mu * F_normal.
>>8200576
please draw a picture of a good surface, i'm stupid.
>>8200583
>please draw a picture of a good surface, i'm stupid.
If one of your surfaces is flat, it literally does not matter what the other surface looks like.
Imagine this, let's say you have an 8lb object resting on 4 spikes. Coefficient of static friction = 0.5 Each spike is delivering 2lb into the ground, which, when pushed perpendicularly, delivers up to 1lb of static friction. Add those all up together, and you have 4lb of static friction, also known as 8lb * 0.5.
Repeat the process with 8 spikes, 16, 32,1000, etc and you'll realize that the number of places with which a surface contacts another surface has no impact on the friction.
>>8200592
I understand thanks.
Then this means that the best surface has a bunch of balls embeded in it that the object can roll over easily. Correct? I am going to create or buy such a surface, one with balls embedded in it so that objects roll effortlessly.
>>8200597
>Then this means that the best surface has a bunch of balls embeded in it that the object can roll over easily.
You will still have to overcome static friction to get the object to start moving, but once it does it'll hold onto that momentum as angular momentum.
So yeah, it'll work like any other object attached to wheels.
>>8200603
>So yeah, it'll work like any other object attached to wheels.
Actually, a bit of a caveat to this:
if your balls are really, really small, you won't really have much leverage to work with, so it'll be much harder to push than something with wheels.
honestly, any practical application for this would probably just be better off w/ wheels
>>8200603
I appreciate your quick help a lot, but I have 1 final post I hope you reply to then I will go...
I am basically trying to pull an object across my tongue surface overnight (8 hours). It'll be pulled with an elastic, but it won't move much at all overnight - will static friction be a problem then? I assume it will be because of how long it'll take and how little it'll move during 8 hours.
>>8200614
Ok wheels i will make on then. Thanks a lot.
>>8200620
>pull an object across my tongue surface overnight
Man, this OP must be on some really weird drugs
>>8200712
UPDATE: I read >>>/diy/1022013 (I missed the link when I initially read the thread) and OP is, in fact, on some really weird drugs.
>>8200603
>angular momentum
You wat, nigger?
>>8200560
autist
>>8200550
Why would A to B create less friction than A to A?
>>8200573
And it still sucked , and OP still got btfo, and it's still 1/10 for making me respond bait. /Sci/, will you kindly keep your autistic weirdos on on this containment board where they belong, please? We have our own weirdos, and we SURE don't send them to you.
Thanks,
/diy/
>>8203065
less surface area in contact
