C. Roald · 17 April 1992
>I would say that any particular material would have a constant coefficient of
>friction, with perhaps, slight variations due to different alloying materials
>and manufacturing techniques used. However, it should be possible to make new
One thing that you may want to note is that the coefficient of friction
is a property of two substances sliding on each other, so wood on ice
has a very different coefficient of friction from wood on sandpaper.
> up to TL 8 normal
^^^^^^ What does "normal" mean?
> TL 9 20% Friction Free
....
> TL 17 99% FF
"Frictionless" means no friction. Zero. I think you're thinking of
smaller and smaller coefficients of friction, and a far more natural way
to list that would be to say the coef. of friction of the slipperiest
substance known decreases by an order of magnitude with each tech level:
ie. 0.001, 0.0001, 0.00001, etc.
I'm curious as to why anyone really cares about improvement in
low-friction substances. Surely this sort of thing just gets lumped
into "improved engine efficiency", or some such.
>An alternative to frictionless materials is the 'Friction field generator'
>(invented by James Blish in one of his _Cities_in_Flight_ books). I can't
>remember the exact explanation given (which may have been BS anyway...), but
"May have been..." ?
- -----------------------------
>It is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have it in their
>heads that modem users should subsidize the phone company and are now
>listening to public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that we will
>not stand for any government restriction on the free exchange of
>information.
Incidentally, guys, don't make the argument based on "free exchange of
information", because they're not trying to restrict what you say.
They're just trying to make you pay more for a piece of equipment that
sits on your desk.
Object because modem users should not subsidize the phone companies.
- ------------------------------
>I don't think there will ever be a frictionless material, unless of
>course someone finds a way to make "smooth" molecules, which according
>to our physics, both newtonian and relativistic, is impossible.
Quantum mechanics disagrees.
If you count "zero viscosity" as equivalent to "zero friction",
we know of at least two frictionless substances: Helium-4 at
temperatures below 4 K, and Helium-3 at temperatures below 1.5 K.
(If for some reason you care about the exact temperatures, look them up.
Don't quote me.) Both substances undergo phase changes to superfluid
states, and develop some distinctly strange properties. And before
anyone says that these temperatures are too cold to be useful, remember
two things: we're talking about working in space, where the ambient
temperature is on this order of magnitude, and that ten years ago,
it was thought that superconductivity could only occur at these
temperatures.
c.r.
- --
I don't know what's weirder--that you're fighting a stuffed animal, or
that you seem to be losing. -- Susie