InsidiousTechnique

InsidiousTechnique t1_ja6gtqn wrote

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thescipub.com/pdf/ajabssp.2010.247.255.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjLocOc8rT9AhWXlIkEHfzuBN4QFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3A1t4DfoJgCQDmG8Etdlju

So I read the paper, and saw it did assert that. But here's another paper (that looks more researched) that has draft force compared to speed, and there's definitely not a squared relation there although it does show an increase on draft force compared to speed it appears more linear.

0

InsidiousTechnique t1_ja6b1qj wrote

I understand the concept, I doubt it applies to dirt in the same way. There's probably some affect there, but surely not in the same cubic relation.

As an example, you can plow dirt and if you were to go over the same dirt right after and it would take much less force at a constant speed.

It's more about the mechanical bonding and friction than fluid losses in this instance. I'm calling in to question your assertion that dirt acts similarly as a fluid in this specific instance.

How much force does it take to pull a plow through dirt at zero speed? Meaning, if you put a plow in to the dirt, does it take greater than zero force to move it?

3