In article om, "Andy Dingley " wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

Again -- the velocity of a falling object is completely independent of its
mass.

Not at all

What do you mean, "not at all"? That was demonstrated by Galileo about five
hundred years ago.

- the velocity of _freely_ falling objects is independent of
mass, but lathe turnings aren't usually freely falling --

They are the moment they come loose from the lathe, which is the issue at
hand. As long as they stay attached, they are not falling objects, and
therefore not relevant to the discussion.

they're
spinning objects in passing contact with some fixed point that can
impart a force to them.

Yes, and that's one of the points I was making -- the force imparted to them
by the lathe is, in most circumstances, of greater magnitude than that
imparted by gravity.

If they're balanced and they fall free from the
chuck then it's no problem - if they catch on the way down, it can get
hairy.

If balanced, sure -- but what if something *breaks*? Then, it's no longer
balanced -- and the direction that broken-off piece moves depends on the
direction it was moving when it came free, and has *nothing* to do with its
mass.

Also note that a perfectly balanced lightweight piece that simply comes loose
will drop straight down, too, just like a perfectly balanced heavy one that
simply comes loose.

The behavior of falling objects in a gravity field is completely independent
of their mass (except to the extent that objects with very low *density* will
fall more slowly due to aerodynamic effects). In vacuum, a feather and a stone
fall at the same rate -- and even in air, there is no difference discenible
without the use of laboratory equipment between the velocity of falling stones
of, say, 1 kg and 10 kg, when dropped from the same height.

Whether a chunk of wood that comes loose from a lathe goes up, down, or
sideways has NOTHING to do with its mass.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.