Not Slippery When Wet

[Chesterton]

At this point you are just JAQing. (just asking questions) You have been given a very significant explanation of friction re water in several disparate situations and your only answer is that we never answered your question yet at the same time, you have made no apparent effort to understand the answers you have been given.

Your inability to do so is noted. Will you leave me alone now?

 

[Chesterton]

You also attacked @Ponderous Curmudgeon for being confused; was he also making condescending remarks or is this just a blanket excuse for justifying making personal attacks against anyone when you don't like their answers?

lol, I haven't attacked anyone. He's obviously confused and doesn't seem to know it. If I were confused I'd want someone to tell me and try to clear things up as I did with him. It didn't work, but I tried.

Who said anything about a high rotation rate causing slipperiness on a wet road?

You did, and you know it, so why are you asking? Just be mature and let it go. I don't care. Let's put the thread out of its misery.

 

[sjastro]

lol, I haven't attacked anyone. He's obviously confused and doesn't seem to know it. If I were confused I'd want someone to tell me and try to clear things up as I did with him. It didn't work, but I tried.

You did, and you know it, so why are you asking? Just be mature and let it go. I don't care. Let's put the thread out of its misery.

 

[Ophiolite]

Who said anything about a high rotation rate causing slipperiness on a wet road?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but as far as I can see you did in post#5.

In the case of driving a car (the moving layer) on a wet road (the stationary plate), the high RPMs of car tyres results in shear rates which easily overcomes the internal friction between the layers hence the slippery road conditions.

Unless you are going to argue that "high RPMs" does not equal "high rotation rate", your statement here is clear and absolute.

 

[sjastro]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but as far as I can see you did in post#5.
Unless you are going to argue that "high RPMs" does not equal "high rotation rate", your statement here is clear and absolute.

In this context high RPMs does equate to high rotation rate.
As post #5 indicates RPMs are required to overcome the frictional resistance of contacting surfaces which is not equivalent to the statement tyre rotation (at any given RPM) causes slipperiness.

In fact stating tyre rotation causes slipperiness is grossly incorrect.
Slipperiness or degree of friction is an inherent property of the contacting surfaces such as resistance to shear, surface energy etc; whether a tyre rotates or not the friction is still there, it becomes a question of whether kinetic or static friction is involved.

To clear up any possible confusion between kinetic and static friction consider a block on an inclined plane.

If the block is sliding down the inclined plane the component of the force mg parallel to the surface which is mgsin(θ) is greater than the opposing frictional force f.
This is an example of kinetic friction where mgsin(θ) - f > 0.
If the block is stationary then static friction is involved where mgsin(θ) - f = 0.
Note in both cases the friction force f is still there irrespective of the whether the block is moving or not.

A rotating tyre needs to overcome greater frictional resistance than a non rotating sliding tyre for the reasons given in this thread.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but as far as I can see you did in post#5.
Unless you are going to argue that "high RPMs" does not equal "high rotation rate", your statement here is clear and absolute.

I have even less of a dog in this fight than you, but @sjastro's explanations, from my observation platform, have resolved the matter quite clearly.

Sometimes the math-descriptive models (including the graphics) which @sjastro often posts, are actually needed to overcome perceived ambiguities taken from mere textual communications. I'm pretty sure he's aware of this and that why he does it. This is what I see going on here.
This is Physics .. not notoriously ambiguous, (spoken), anecdotal opinions!

 

[sjastro]

I have even less of a dog in this fight than you, but @sjastro's explanations, from my observation platform, have resolved the matter quite clearly.

Sometimes the math-descriptive models (including the graphics) which @sjastro often posts, are actually needed to overcome perceived ambiguities taken from mere textual communications. I'm pretty sure he's aware of this and that why he does it. This is what I see going on here.
This is Physics .. not notoriously ambiguous, (spoken), anecdotal opinions!

I'm glad you used the term sometimes which I have emboldened.
In many cases the maths serves to confuse not enlighten such as the standard model of particle physics which is 'simplified' by the following equation.

A translation of the equation is given here.

 

[SelfSim]

In this context high RPMs does equate to high rotation rate.
As post #5 indicates RPMs are required to overcome the frictional resistance of contacting surfaces which is not equivalent to the statement tyre rotation (at any given RPM) causes slipperiness.

In fact stating tyre rotation causes slipperiness is grossly incorrect.
Slipperiness or degree of friction is an inherent property of the contacting surfaces such as resistance to shear, surface energy etc; whether a tyre rotates or not the friction is still there, it becomes a question of whether kinetic or static friction is involved.

To clear up any possible confusion between kinetic and static friction consider a block on an inclined plane.

If the block is sliding down the inclined plane the component of the force mg parallel to the surface which is mgsin(θ) is greater than the opposing frictional force f.
This is an example of kinetic friction where mgsin(θ) - f > 0.
If the block is stationary then static friction is involved where mgsin(θ) - f = 0.
Note in both cases the friction force f is still there irrespective of the whether the block is moving or not.

A rotating tyre needs to overcome greater frictional resistance than a non rotating sliding tyre for the reasons given in this thread.

As an aside (and adding more, probably unwanted, complexity), going back to my 'weird YouTuber' example of car rescues; In one episode, the rescue 'professional' makes the claim that its important to deflate the front (uphill) steering wheels of the towing vehicle when on an incline with a loose sandy surface. He says this helps the front tires to rise above the sand, (a fluid), thereby preventing them from getting bogged. Never mind the loss of friction caused by his flooring the accelerator with all four wheels spinning and the back tyres digging in even more, as a result(?)

 

[SelfSim]

I'm glad you used the term sometimes which I have emboldened.
In many cases the maths serves to confuse not enlighten such as the standard model of particle physics which is 'simplified' by the following equation.

A translation of the equation is given here.

Y'know .. I was thinking of exactly that (which you posted a few weeks ago). I've been psychologically traumatised for weeks now, as many are likely to agree with, given my various commentaries on the more philosophical threads. No fears though .. I don't think I've entirely lost it just yet .. I think(?)

 

[sjastro]

Y'know .. I was thinking of exactly that (which you posted a few weeks ago). I've been psychologically traumatised for weeks now, as many are likely to agree with, given my various commentaries on the more philosophical threads. No fears though .. I don't think I've entirely lost it just yet .. I think(?)

I can recognize some of the individual terms in the equation according to their Feynman diagrams such as the QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) component of the equation.
It requires converting a Feynman diagram such as the scattering of two electrons;

into the corresponding mathematical equation using the Feynman rules.

If I was to explain it with an analogy it's like knowing some of the individual words and being unable to construct and understand the sentences.
E = mc² is far easier.

​

 

[Ophiolite]

In this context high RPMs does equate to high rotation rate.
As post #5 indicates RPMs are required to overcome the frictional resistance of contacting surfaces which is not equivalent to the statement tyre rotation (at any given RPM) causes slipperiness.

In fact stating tyre rotation causes slipperiness is grossly incorrect.

I don't doubt your grasp of the physics. I do doubt your grasp of English. Your statement makes a clear link between tire rotation and the resultant slipperiness. At the very least, and I don't give this option many points, your statement is ambiguous. Repeating an argument without a corresponding acknowledgement that you miss spoke will get us nowhere.

 

[Lost4words]

When my fur is wet i dont skid so much!

 

[SelfSim]

I don't doubt your grasp of the physics. I do doubt your grasp of English. Your statement makes a clear link between tire rotation and the resultant slipperiness. At the very least, and I don't give this option many points, your statement is ambiguous.

.. a clear link between a HIGH rotation rate compared with a LOWER one (or a locked wheel). The context surrounding the posts in question determines whether its ambiguous or not, and in this case, the given (and restated) context removed any perceived ambiguity.

Repeating an argument without a corresponding acknowledgement that you miss spoke will get us nowhere.

Mis-reading, not looking at, or not thinking about the context, in this case, appears to have been the issue here, IMO.

 

[sjastro]

I don't doubt your grasp of the physics. I do doubt your grasp of English. Your statement makes a clear link between tire rotation and the resultant slipperiness. At the very least, and I don't give this option many points, your statement is ambiguous. Repeating an argument without a corresponding acknowledgement that you miss spoke will get us nowhere.

It’s not my grasp of English which is the issue here but your failure to understand cause and effect.

In my previous post I made it perfectly clear the cause of slipperiness or low friction, in this case of water, relates to its physical and chemical properties.
Let me expand on post #5 and so there is no misunderstanding and accusations of poor English.
When the RPMs change with time a tangential force is applied to the water where the tyre contacts the water.
The magnitude of the tangential force required to cause the water to shear depends on these physical and chemical characteristics not around the other way.

In other words post #5 describes the effect of slipperiness on RPMs; RPMs are not a cause for slipperiness which was the issue being addressed.

 

[Ophiolite]

It’s not my grasp of English which is the issue here

Yet you continue to address the physics of the situation rather than the grammatical structure of your sentence in which you state the contrary. Since you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that your writing was anbiguous on this point, as is evident from your failure to address it, I see no point in any further discusison on the matter.

 

[SelfSim]

Ahh .. the Ignore card play .. promptly followed by the big Flounce .. Better watch out for the nuclear option of the weaponised Ignore function!

 

[sjastro]

Yet you continue to address the physics of the situation rather than the grammatical structure of your sentence in which you state the contrary. Since you are unwilling to even consider the possibility that your writing was anbiguous on this point, as is evident from your failure to address it, I see no point in any further discusison on the matter.

For someone who has mentioned more than once there is no point in further discussion you still want to carry on with this obsession about my grammar.
Instead of criticizing here is your challenge; what grammar should be used which satisfies your requirements which is also consistent with the physics and the chronological order of the thread.