Talk:Friction#Disputed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

A fact from Friction appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 February 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Friction coefficient is very important in determining the friction between two objects? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/February.

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Leonardo did not publish any of his findings; however, some of his notebook pages discovered more recently contain amazing illustrations and observations related to friction. His ideas included the thought that friction was the result of the roughness of the material and smoother materials resulted in less friction. 165.228.48.230 (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please draft a few sentences to a paragraph that you are suggesting gets added to the History section. I think adding it would be appropriate, but we need to see a specific change proposal. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced paper [44] Superlubricity of Graphite states µ below 0.001 instead of 0.01 139.30.239.150 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declining the change. Martin Dienwiebel's paper does not define superlubricity, for which different people have slightly different values, so "below 0.01" is not incorrect. I added a ref to Martin Muser's paper which is in the Wikipedia link and the source of that number. In this article I don't think more is needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chjoaygame, unfortunately your recent change could be read to indicate that the force due to friction is a fundamental force. It is not, it is only the consequence of elastic/plastic deformation and others such as triboelectricity etc. Whatever goes into those is manifested as friction. Rather than my reverting your edit, can you please change it. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954, thank you for your helpful comment, which I regard as valid. I will shortly try to do better, hopefully within a day.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I note that my initial edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friction&diff=1287427495&oldid=1287295431 was only to the first paragraph; I left the other paragraphs untouched. I wonder if what you found unsatisfactory was actually in the second paragraph? I agree that the second paragraph has problems, but I planned to touch up the first paragraph before tackling the second paragraph. I have retouched the first paragraph. Enough for the moment. Your thoughts?Chjoaygame (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of that first paragraph was a digression -- polishing etc has nothing to with the work done. I trimmed it.

I need to do some work on this article, parts are a bit of a mess. Toooo bust at the moment. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That section is a combination of somewhat vague statements plus some unsourced opinions about thermodynamic relevance that has no bearing on friction. I propose to take the first paragraph of the "Work" subsection, ensure that is goes somewhere earlier, and delete the rest. I will wait a few days for comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no section titled “Energy due to friction” so I assume you mean the section titled “Energy of friction”. There is no subsection titled “Work” so I assume you mean the subsection titled “Work dissipated through friction”.

Are you proposing to retain the paragraph Friction is a response to a primary active force. Part or all of the energy transferred as work done by the primary force is dissipated as heat, deformation, wear, triboelectic charge transfer and changes of the contact surfaces. The dissipated energy does not enter the target body as work, and the dissipated energy per unit distance is what manifests as the frictional force., and delete the remainder of the subsection?

I agree that the remainder of the subsection is designed to confuse rather than enlighten. Much of it is unsourced. What value there is in the remainder can be salvaged and restored to the article, with sources, if someone is motivated to do so. I don’t object to your proposal. Dolphin (t) 13:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the dry friction section

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "http://localhost:6011/en.wikipedia.org/v1/":): {\displaystyle F_\text{max}} Ludrol (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't replicate that error again Ludrol (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]