🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35a12a3f.8850095@news.serv.net>,
   eta@my-dejanews.com (Eric Anderson) wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 06:41:20 GMT, in@the.sig (E. Faubion) wrote:
>
>>All this is fine and dandy except it computes to a c.o.f. of almost 1g
>>which is equal to gravity.   [...snip...]  Care to explain? 
>

Can't find the original post, so I thought I would reply to this instead. 
Earl, it appears that you think that there is something magic about a CoF of 
1.0, and that it is not possible to have a greater CoF. Okay, for your 
edification, the following coefficients of friction can be found in the CRC 
Handbook (I hope you have heard of it, it is VERY well known in the scientific 
community.

First, some static coefficients of friction.

Material                      CoF

Rubber on various solids      1-4
Cu on Cu                      1.6 (4.0 in H2 or N2)
Au on Au                      2.8 (4.0 in H2 or N2)
Ni on Ni                      3.0 (5.0 in H2 or N2)

Now, Kinetic Friction of rubber(measured at 100mm/min)

Material                     CoF

Rubber on concrete           1.02
wet concrete                 0.94
Rubber on bitumen            1.07
wet bitumen                  0.95

All rubber here is natural rubber-many compounds used in high performance 
tyres will be higher due to addition of materials such as silicon.

So, Earl, this shows that ascribing a number of 0.7 is simplistic in the 
extreme, and that coefficients of friction >1 are reasonable commonplace, 
especially for rubber on almost any solid surface.

Dennis