Difference between revisions of "Mesoscale friction"
(basic page) |
(→Related: added three links) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
'''Q:''' What model for friction is appropriate to apply at intermediate scales? <br> | '''Q:''' What model for friction is appropriate to apply at intermediate scales? <br> | ||
How do optimal larger scale bearings look like even? <br> | How do optimal larger scale bearings look like even? <br> | ||
| − | Maybe [[infinitesimal | + | Maybe [[infinitesimal bearing]]s based on [[atomically precise roller gearbearing]]s? <br> |
| − | Or working from macroscale down existing | + | Or working from macroscale down existing bearings modified such that any remaining sliding is gearbeared on a smaller scale? <br> |
Sounds crazy fractal exotic. | Sounds crazy fractal exotic. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
== Relevancy == | == Relevancy == | ||
| − | For estimating frictional losses in the higher up [[ | + | For estimating frictional losses in the higher up [[assembly level]]s of a [[gem-gum factory]] <br> |
a crudely order of magnitude correct model of critical necessity. | a crudely order of magnitude correct model of critical necessity. | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
== High speed limits to [[infinitesimal bearings]] == | == High speed limits to [[infinitesimal bearings]] == | ||
| − | Just making very thick infinitesimal bearings of [[atomically precise | + | Just making very thick infinitesimal bearings of [[atomically precise diamondoid slide bearing]] seems far from optimal. <br> |
For very high speeds like e.g. take the [[Unsupported rotating ring speed limit]] of about 3000m/s even large layernumbers | For very high speeds like e.g. take the [[Unsupported rotating ring speed limit]] of about 3000m/s even large layernumbers | ||
leave friction levels high. | leave friction levels high. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
== Related == | == Related == | ||
| − | [[Atomically precise roller gearbearing]] | + | * [[Atomically precise roller gearbearing]] |
| + | * [[Atomically precise bearings]] | ||
| + | * [[Friction]] | ||
| + | * [[Friction in gem-gum technology]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:29, 30 August 2022
The problem: A missing model for friction at the intermediate size scales.
Contents
Comparison of friction at different scales
Macroscale friction:
- dependent on normal force
- independent from bearing area
Nanoscale friction:
- dependent on speed (squared!)
- dependent on bearing area
- independent on loads (to a degree)
Micro to mesoscale friction ??
Just an interpolation between the two?! Seems theoretically unbiased.
Even if just interpolate, then how?
Q: What model for friction is appropriate to apply at intermediate scales?
How do optimal larger scale bearings look like even?
Maybe infinitesimal bearings based on atomically precise roller gearbearings?
Or working from macroscale down existing bearings modified such that any remaining sliding is gearbeared on a smaller scale?
Sounds crazy fractal exotic.
Q: High can low friction at high speeds of macroscale bearing be achieved
without incurring the problem of wear that macroscale bearings suffer from?
Relevancy
For estimating frictional losses in the higher up assembly levels of a gem-gum factory
a crudely order of magnitude correct model of critical necessity.
Related: Friction in gem-gum technology & Friction
High speed limits to infinitesimal bearings
Just making very thick infinitesimal bearings of atomically precise diamondoid slide bearing seems far from optimal.
For very high speeds like e.g. take the Unsupported rotating ring speed limit of about 3000m/s even large layernumbers
leave friction levels high.
1cm thick sheet of 10nm infinitesimal bearing layers => 1000000layers @ 3mm/s 1000000m² internal bearing area per 1m² effective bearing With (conservative estimate) ~10mW/m² at 3mm/s that is 10kW friction OUCH. going 10cm thick 1000W still a lot.
