Walking would not be impossible, but it would be likened to trying to walk on ice. Friction opposes movement, which can also be translated into traction. The more friction, the more of an opposing force the object will feel. Since ice has no friction, slipping and sliding is a problem to deal with. But since the majority of ground material on Earth has some type of friction, the opposing force that it provides also allows the feet to remain firmly planted on the ground rather than slipping out from underneath.
It would be difficult for me. Someone with good balance, an ice skater or roller skater perhaps, may be able to stay upright while they glide across a friction free surface assuming they could get some motion built up.
Friction is a whole lot more useful than you might think. We walk by applying pressure on the ground with our leg that is transferred through the bottom of our feet. Now, think if there was no friction. What force would be keeping our foot from sliding back? nothing, as a matter of fact. Friction is what allows us to move forward, we just don't realize it. This friction is known as "static friction." The friction you are probably more familiar with is "kinetic friction" that is, the friction that exists due to the rubbing of two things on each other.
Without friction there is no grip on the surface causing the person to easily slip.
No.
Without friction, your foot would just slide backwards as you try to push off for a step.
Without an opposing force like friction, we would slip on any surface, therefore being unable to walk.
If there is no friction, there is no force to stop us from going forward or in any direction.
If you were to attempt to walk on a surface that has no friction (and such surfaces are rare - wet ice comes very close) you would just slide, you could not walk.
friction is a force needed for the wheel to grip the ground
If they were able to imitate the motions of a catipillar with their feet, yes. equal&opposite reactions are not required laterally against the ground for movement.
no
Yes, because of rolling friction which is a type of friction that any rolling object experiences. This friction adds resistance to roll which will slow the marble and eventually stop.
Using a lever and using Wheel and axle is completely different.Some Practical situations could be :When you want to move a heavy box and you are using a lever to roll it to make it move,You can rather use a wheel and axle.The thing is that where wheel and axle is used at that place lever cannot be used and vice versa.You cannot use a wheel and axle to open cars door hence lever is used.You cannot use lever to move a car there fore you need wheel and axle.
If you push a rollerskate down the sidewalk and don't keep pushing it, rolling friction will eventually cause it to stop on its own (assuming that the sidewalk is level and not on a hill)
No. Bigger wheels roll slower than smaller wheels. They roll slower because they have a larger circumference and they take longer to roll. Smaller wheels have a smaller circumference meaning they go faster.
Friction reduces velocity because it is the force responsible for the resistance to motion of objects on surfaces or in fluids. For example, bowling alleys have very low friction whereas sandpaper has extremely high friction.
You couldn't roll without them.
You can't roll without them.
Yes necessary evil. If friction is totally absent then no wheel could roll on the road. No chance of walking on the floor. We cannot hold even the pen. Same time too much of friction would bring a terrible loss of energy.
Without friction, objects would have no resistance, therefor loose no energy as a result. For example, without friction a ball could roll up and down a half-pipe continusily without loosing hight.
there is friction in your cars brake system and without that frictiuon there your car would roll away whenever it was on a hill so this is a good example of when friction is useful.
Roll in the clover/hay. To roll joints, smoke and roll on one's back /sides/ front while laying on a couch/bed. Anything rolling from one place to another. To move/roll from one place to another.
It's static because the major cause of rolling friction is deformation of both roll and surface it's moving on - surfaces do not slide on each other(at any given instant the relative velocity of point on the roll that touches surface and surface itself is zero - at least in the model). The deformation causes the point of contact to be slightly displaced in front of the moving roll and reaction force at this point plus weight of the rolling object are no longer on the same line. This introduces torque that opposes the rotation of the roll. Rolling friction is essentially static friction because the point of the wheel in contact with the ground does not slide against it, but instead maintains its position. If enough static friction does not exist and the wheel slips against the ground, motion will not be proper. Sliding friction will however be taken into account in that case.
The probability of them crashing is 1.
Gears are not perfect example for rolling friction. Most energy lost in gear operation is due to the surface shear stress, which is more like sliding friction. Rolling friction is due to the pressure induced torque applied on the roll axis. Under this circumstance, the equivalent pressure force doesn't point to the roll axis, which creates a torque to resist the rolling motion. A good example for rolling friction can be a running wheel of the car.
because of the friction.
false
because the wheels roll,and without the wheels then the bottom of the dresser would just slide and create static electricty,also know as,friction!:)