Will a rough surface have a greater or lesser sliding force and static friction compared to a smooth surface?

Friction is resisting force - a type of force that resists movement. The type of friction that resists movement between two objects in contact with each other is dry friction. There is dry friction between a book and a table, or the wheels of a car and the road.

Dry friction can be divided into two. Objects in contact against each other can be moving with respect to one another or stationary. When the objects are stationary, the friction between them is called static friction. Static friction resists movement. Imagine a box full of books on a floor. Initially, when you try to push the box, you struggle. This is because of the static friction between the box and the floor that resists the force you apply. Overcoming this, it becomes easier. Once the box starts to move, there is sliding friction. Sliding friction is the type of friction between objects moving relative to one another, and always opposes the acting force. Thus, it resists the movement as well as you push the box.

Friction - whether static or sliding, or any other type of friction - depends on the type of material and the degree of contact between objects. In general, rougher surfaces tend to have higher coefficients of friction - which means they will tend to have higher sliding and static friction. Rough surfaces are surfaces that are highly uneven - maybe because of parts of it sticking out, or just scratched surface. These increases the surface area of contact between two objects, and could contribute to an increase in friction. Imagine the box on a cemented floor. The cemented floor is rough and it will be hard to either start pushing the box or continue pushing it. This is true when compared to pushing the box on an ice rink - where friction is lower and hence, the task is easier.

While this is the general case, it is not always true. For instance, two glasses are very hard to slide against each other. This is because of adhesion between the molecules. There is a point where when two objects are really smooth, friction increases due to adhesion. In general, however, smoother surfaces have less friction, while rough surfaces have greater friction.

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog