Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments
done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near
Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized
by the Guiness Book of world records just lately.
Metal content : this is a copper mine...............
Phil Kangas

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:03:46 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:

Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments
done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near
Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized
by the Guiness Book of world records just lately.
Metal content : this is a copper mine...............
Phil Kangas

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

Fascinating!

A.P. wrote:
"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
...

Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments
done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near
Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized
by the Guiness Book of world records just lately.
Metal content : this is a copper mine...............
Phil Kangas

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm




I find it strange that the Chef Ingeneer (and owners) allowed a 4000' long
pipeline to be supendend only at the top ! ( it should snap !? )
They would make supension at every 30' ! The pipes are made to cary
something, maby liquid , that will make the pipe X times heavier !
Not PIPE lines, PLUMB lines. In this case, I suspect they were steel
music wire, not string.

And, the cause of the anomaly is obvious! The plumb lines were being
attracted to the walls of the shaft. There was nothing but air between
them, but there were the walls of the shaft on the exterior. They hung
the lines quite far apart (12 to 17 Feet), when they could have hung
them just a few inches apart. I suspect if they plotted outward
deflection against spacing, they'd find a NON-linear relationship,
while the gravitational effect SHOULD have been linear (and the other
direction, of course.)

Jon

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:37:02 -0800, "A.P."
wrote:


"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
...
Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments
done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near
Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized
by the Guiness Book of world records just lately.
Metal content : this is a copper mine...............
Phil Kangas

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm



I find it strange that the Chef Ingeneer (and owners) allowed a 4000' long
pipeline to be supendend only at the top ! ( it should snap !? )
They would make supension at every 30' ! The pipes are made to cary
something, maby liquid , that will make the pipe X times heavier !

... but sometimes i like to be entertained by ufo's readings + + +

A.P.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Hoping the poster is kidding....)

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:48:44 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:


And, the cause of the anomaly is obvious! The plumb lines were being
attracted to the walls of the shaft.

They checked for that IRRC.

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Wonder what the lines would have done at the equator? Or hung say North and
South?

"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
...
Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments
done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near
Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized
by the Guiness Book of world records just lately.
Metal content : this is a copper mine...............
Phil Kangas

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm



I find it strange that the Chef Ingeneer (and owners) allowed a 4000' long
pipeline to be supendend only at the top ! ( it should snap !? )
They would make supension at every 30' ! The pipes are made to cary
something, maby liquid , that will make the pipe X times heavier !

.... but sometimes i like to be entertained by ufo's readings + + +

A.P.

Gunner wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:48:44 -0600, Jon Elson
wrote:


And, the cause of the anomaly is obvious! The plumb lines were being
attracted to the walls of the shaft.


They checked for that IRRC.
They may have THOUGHT they corrected for it, but it is actually a pretty
tough calculation, I believe. If they corrected for ONLY the
gravitational effect on the weight, and ignored the wire, that might be
enough to do it. Anyway, I'm pretty well convinced that the earth is
actually round, and not hollow, therefore the plumb lines SHOULD hang
such that the bottom end IS closer together, if such effects as Coriolis
and the test being conducted in a giant hole were not screwing things up.

With decent measuring gear, this test could probably be conducted in
a cargo container (to eliminate drafts), thereby removing the screwy
effects of doing it in a hole with massive amounts of earth on all sides.

Jon

"A.P." wrote in message
...

"Phil Kangas" wrote in message
...
Here's an interesting site concerning the experiments
done with plumb lines in the Tamarack Mine near
Calumet Michigan in 1901. This has been recognized
by the Guiness Book of world records just lately.
Metal content : this is a copper mine...............
Phil Kangas

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm



I find it strange that the Chef Ingeneer (and owners) allowed a 4000' long
pipeline to be supendend only at the top ! ( it should snap !? )
They would make supension at every 30' ! The pipes are made to cary
something, maby liquid , that will make the pipe X times heavier !

... but sometimes i like to be entertained by ufo's readings + + +

A.P.



Ok , ok :-) I managed to make a fool of myself . A plumb line
is NOT a line of pipes mounted down the shaft my a plumber,
it is 'only' a string whit a weight at the bottom !......
...... YEAAA i know (now :O)
( I'm from Sweden )

A.P.

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:07:00 -0500, "Bob Chilcoat"
wrote:

Coriolis force is only seen in objects moving within the rotating frame of
reference. These are static relative to the rotating frame of reference, so
no coriolis "force".

Hey Bob,

Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links than seems to
be what some here are talking about. The one factor that it stated
could account for the difference, was the centrifugal force, which to
me is similar to the Coriolis effect.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

Brian Lawson wrote:
( big snip) centrifugal force, which to
me is similar to the Coriolis effect.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

Brian, You better go back and take a physics course if
you think they are similar. How are you with weight
and mass? :-)
...lew...

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message

Hey Bob,

Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links
than seems to
be what some here are talking about. The one factor that
it stated
could account for the difference, was the centrifugal
force, which to
me is similar to the Coriolis effect.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal force.
Never was, is not
now and never will be................
Phil Kangas

In article , pkangas@
$portup.com says...

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message

Hey Bob,

Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links
than seems to
be what some here are talking about. The one factor that
it stated
could account for the difference, was the centrifugal
force, which to
me is similar to the Coriolis effect.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal force.
Never was, is not
now and never will be................

Where did this ever start? Every mechanics book and ME
handbook on my bookshelf that I checked gives a definition
and formula for centrifugal force.

Resnick & Halliday
Marks
Beer & Johnston
Mabie & Reinholtz
Eshbach
Kent
Machinery's Handbook

Resnick & Halliday refers to centrifugal force as a
"pseudo-force", by which they mean it's a force due to
inertial effects, not that it doesn't exist. I wonder if
this is the source of the confusion?

Ned Simmons

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message

Hey Bob,

Maybe I read further in the article or some of the
links
than seems to
be what some here are talking about. The one factor
that
it stated
could account for the difference, was the centrifugal
force, which to
me is similar to the Coriolis effect.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal
force.
Never was, is not
now and never will be................

Where did this ever start? Every mechanics book and ME
handbook on my bookshelf that I checked gives a definition
and formula for centrifugal force.

Resnick & Halliday
Marks
Beer & Johnston
Mabie & Reinholtz
Eshbach
Kent
Machinery's Handbook

Resnick & Halliday refers to centrifugal force as a
"pseudo-force", by which they mean it's a force due to
inertial effects, not that it doesn't exist. I wonder if
this is the source of the confusion?

Ned Simmons

No that's not the source of the 'confusion'. This is one of
my pet peeves
and every time I find another "reputable" reference book
this is the
first thing I look for in the index. They all have it wrong
no matter how
many times they repeat it. Try discussing this in any
college physics
class and see how far you get. Most people just blindly
believe what
they are told as the subject is too difficult to comprehend
and contrary
to what they experience when subjected to "cf'. Back in 1966
at Mich
Tech in Houghton our instructor asked on the first day of
class how
many of us believed in cf. He then proceeded to explain
centripetal
force and stated that anyone referring to cf again in his
class would
receive a failing grade for not grasping the subject matter
at hand.
So don't look for an explanation of cf in those books, study
the subject
of physics yourself. I have several college level physics
books in my library
and none of them list centrifugal force in their indexes.
Phil Kangas

Hey Phil,

Ok then, what do you prefer to call the apparent force exerted when a
weight is swung around in a circle? Just semantics for you? I've
always thought centripetal or centrifugal force seemed right, but I'm
not too old to learn a new word. And it will only be a word, because
I already know that force is there.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:08:38 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:


"Brian Lawson" wrote in message

Hey Bob,

Maybe I read further in the article or some of the links
than seems to
be what some here are talking about. The one factor that
it stated
could account for the difference, was the centrifugal
force, which to
me is similar to the Coriolis effect.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal force.
Never was, is not
now and never will be................
Phil Kangas

Here is a good read :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon
Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side -
select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says.

Just the facts.

Martin

Phil Kangas wrote:
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message

Hey Bob,

Maybe I read further in the article or some of the

links

than seems to

be what some here are talking about. The one factor

that

it stated

could account for the difference, was the centrifugal

force, which to

me is similar to the Coriolis effect.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal

force.

Never was, is not
now and never will be................

Where did this ever start? Every mechanics book and ME
handbook on my bookshelf that I checked gives a definition
and formula for centrifugal force.

Resnick & Halliday
Marks
Beer & Johnston
Mabie & Reinholtz
Eshbach
Kent
Machinery's Handbook

Resnick & Halliday refers to centrifugal force as a
"pseudo-force", by which they mean it's a force due to
inertial effects, not that it doesn't exist. I wonder if
this is the source of the confusion?

Ned Simmons


No that's not the source of the 'confusion'. This is one of
my pet peeves
and every time I find another "reputable" reference book
this is the
first thing I look for in the index. They all have it wrong
no matter how
many times they repeat it. Try discussing this in any
college physics
class and see how far you get. Most people just blindly
believe what
they are told as the subject is too difficult to comprehend
and contrary
to what they experience when subjected to "cf'. Back in 1966
at Mich
Tech in Houghton our instructor asked on the first day of
class how
many of us believed in cf. He then proceeded to explain
centripetal
force and stated that anyone referring to cf again in his
class would
receive a failing grade for not grasping the subject matter
at hand.
So don't look for an explanation of cf in those books, study
the subject
of physics yourself. I have several college level physics
books in my library
and none of them list centrifugal force in their indexes.
Phil Kangas






--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:32:18 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
wrote:

So don't look for an explanation of cf in those books, study
the subject
of physics yourself. I have several college level physics
books in my library
and none of them list centrifugal force in their indexes.
Phil Kangas


How come labs dont have centripuges?

Gunner
G
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message

Here is a good read :


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon
Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right
side -
select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it
says.

Just the facts.

Martin


From that site:
From the reference frame of a person in the car, there seems
to be an outward centrifugal force

That's it, cf is a definition put forth by the human mind
desiring to live in
logical harmony with its environment. On this web site cf is
enclosed in " " .
Thanks.
Phil

Phil Kangas wrote:
Try discussing this in any
college physics
class and see how far you get. Most people just blindly
believe what
they are told as the subject is too difficult to comprehend
and contrary
to what they experience when subjected to "cf'.

A-Men Phil. I was about to ask "how many of these
people using the term cf ever took a physics course? " :-)
...lew...

Hey Martin,

Thanks for that site. Excellent for a simple type like me. I bet I
could spend a week there just browsing!

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:51:25 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Here is a good read :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon
Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side -
select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says.

Just the facts.

Martin

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:15:41 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Sort of like RMS power. Everybody knows what it means. It helps 99.99%
of the people who feel the force to deal with it in a way that feels
logical, and relatively simple and lets them go about their lives
without doing a Physics course so that they can be inculcated in the
"correct" terminology.

The other .1% get worked up about the fact that every book they read
mentins it. hmmm

That's it, cf is a definition put forth by the human mind
desiring to live in
logical harmony with its environment. On this web site cf is
enclosed in " " .
Thanks.
Phil

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:15:41 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Also from that site. They mention the Coriolis Force. From my ancient
and simple memory, this is not a force at all, but the effect of
rotation of the mother body causeing the moving minor object to
_appear_ to curve.

What force is involved in that? As with Centrifugal Force, by your
argument, it does not exist.

Coriolis Effect I can live with.

BTW, what _is_ the force that a body on the end of a piece of string,
being swung around, exerts on the string? It does not matter that "all
that body wants to do is travel in a straight line. For every action
there is an equal and opposite reacion. So what is the name of the
force that opposes centripital force?

From that site:
From the reference frame of a person in the car, there seems
to be an outward centrifugal force

That's it, cf is a definition put forth by the human mind
desiring to live in
logical harmony with its environment. On this web site cf is
enclosed in " " .
Thanks.
Phil

In article , says...

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message

"Brian Lawson" wrote in message

Hey Bob,

Maybe I read further in the article or some of the
links
than seems to
be what some here are talking about. The one factor
that
it stated
could account for the difference, was the centrifugal
force, which to
me is similar to the Coriolis effect.

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario

Problem here, there is no such thing as centrifugal
force.
Never was, is not
now and never will be................

Where did this ever start? Every mechanics book and ME
handbook on my bookshelf that I checked gives a definition
and formula for centrifugal force.

Resnick & Halliday
Marks
Beer & Johnston
Mabie & Reinholtz
Eshbach
Kent
Machinery's Handbook

Resnick & Halliday refers to centrifugal force as a
"pseudo-force", by which they mean it's a force due to
inertial effects, not that it doesn't exist. I wonder if
this is the source of the confusion?

Ned Simmons

No that's not the source of the 'confusion'. This is one of
my pet peeves
and every time I find another "reputable" reference book
this is the
first thing I look for in the index. They all have it wrong
no matter how
many times they repeat it. Try discussing this in any
college physics
class and see how far you get. Most people just blindly
believe what
they are told as the subject is too difficult to comprehend
and contrary
to what they experience when subjected to "cf'.

It's not all that difficult to understand. If you accept that
observations may only be made from an inertial frame of reference, and
that the only true forces are nuclear, electromagnetic, and
gravitational forces, centrifugal force *doesn't* exist. It seems that
physicists are more likely to take this view than (more pragmatic)
engineers, though poking around the web a bit I found opinions from both
camps all over the map. At least one site I visited implied that this
controversy was relatively recent and said something to the effect that
though the physicists have been fighting the good fight for several
decades, the engineers just don't get it. Another physicist longed for
the good old days before the "new physics" began to question the
existence of cf.

One particularly striking argument I ran across in a couple anti-cf
sites is that *gravity* is a pseudo-force, apparently in response to the
fact that it's impossible to tell the difference between the effects of
gravity and cf in certain rotating frames.

All this leads me to believe this would make a good subject for a term
paper--in a philosophy or religion class. g

Back in 1966
at Mich
Tech in Houghton our instructor asked on the first day of
class how
many of us believed in cf. He then proceeded to explain
centripetal
force and stated that anyone referring to cf again in his
class would
receive a failing grade for not grasping the subject matter
at hand.
So don't look for an explanation of cf in those books, study
the subject
of physics yourself. I have several college level physics
books in my library
and none of them list centrifugal force in their indexes.

I did take at least 3 semesters of classical physics and engineering
mechanics in the early 70s and all my texts and all the engineering
references on my bookshelf that deal with the subject mention
centrifugal force, most with some mention of the frame of reference
issue. Perhaps this is a consequence of a bias towards engineering
references, but then I haven't been culling books based on the presence
of the word centrifugal in the index.

What is it about the concept of centrifugal force that peeves you so,
Phil? How do you feel about the "g-forces" one experiences as a result
of linear acceleration?

Ned Simmons

"Ned Simmons"

What is it about the concept of centrifugal force that
peeves you so,
Phil? How do you feel about the "g-forces" one experiences
as a result
of linear acceleration?

Ned Simmons

What peeves me is the stubborn presentation of cf as fact in
reference
books when in reality it does not exist. I can accept
'g-forces' in linear
acceleration, no problem there. The g-force in rotation is
centripetal
acceleration, similar to g-force in linear acceleration. A
weight swung
in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force.
Phil

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:44:01 -0600, "Tim Williams"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

"Old Nick" wrote in message
.. .
It does not matter that "all
that body wants to do is travel in a straight line. For every action
there is an equal and opposite reacion. So what is the name of the
force that opposes centripital force?

Oh, but it does. The weight need not move relative to the string, that is,
change its radial position (mind the difference between angular and
orthogonal perspectives!!), for there to always be a constant force on the
weight, transferred through the string, to the axis.


??????

Anyway. There is also a force acting on the axis. What is that force
called?

As for centrifugal force, this is an imagined force and is a person's
perspective of what is, in reality, their applying the very centrifical
force which is accelerating them in the curve. When you go around a curve,
you have to push into the car door -- this push (along with shear force on
the seat, etc.) keeps you in the same relative position inside the car as
the car makes the turn.

You winding me up? I hope so. You are using a term that should not
exist in order to explain why a word that does exist is not a force?

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cen1.htm

Those versed in Newtonian mechanics will of course say at once that
centrifugal force doesn’t actually exist, but is a virtual force based
on our subjective sensory experiences — it’s really inertia trying to
keep a body moving in a straight line. But leaving the physics aside,
the term centrifugal certainly exists. But until you mentioned it, I’d
not to my knowledge ever come across centrifical and would at once
have marked it as the error it is. But it’s surprisingly common.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:34:41 -0500, Ned Simmons
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email


All this leads me to believe this would make a good subject for a term
paper--in a philosophy or religion class. g

Hehe! Lervit.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:55:49 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email
A
weight swung
in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force.
Phil

And what holds the string straight?

"Old Nick"
wrote in message

remove ns from my header address to reply via email
A
weight swung
in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal
force.
Phil

And what holds the string straight?


Nick, you need to _read_ what it says on this site. Click on
the
cf balloon and study it. Interesting stuff.........

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon
Phil

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:55:49 -0500, the inscrutable "Phil Kangas"
spake:

What peeves me is the stubborn presentation of cf as fact in
reference
books when in reality it does not exist. I can accept
'g-forces' in linear
acceleration, no problem there. The g-force in rotation is
centripetal
acceleration, similar to g-force in linear acceleration. A
weight swung
in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force.

Semantics of pull vs. push? OK. (6 of one, half dozen of the other.)
My dad took physics at Berkeley circa 1939 and taught me about
centrifugal forces. I hadn't even heard of centripetal force until I
saw it here a year or two ago, forcing me to Google it. In any
case, I'll think "centripetal" instead of "centrifugal" the next time
I build a hand sling or treb, Phil.


Also OT, tomorrow is "Not One Damn Dime Day"

Join the group who isn't buying anything on Anti-Inauguration Day,
January 20, 2005. Don't buy gas, food, groceries, or anything for
those 24 hours. Leave your wallet and cash at home.



--
I speak 2 languages fluently: English and foul.
---------------------------
http://diversify.com Mostly cuss-free Websites

Ned Simmons wrote:

I did take at least 3 semesters of classical physics and engineering
mechanics in the early 70s and all my texts and all the engineering
references on my bookshelf that deal with the subject mention
centrifugal force, most with some mention of the frame of reference
issue. Perhaps this is a consequence of a bias towards engineering
references, but then I haven't been culling books based on the presence
of the word centrifugal in the index.
Ned Simmons

Ned I took my physics classes in the 50s and no centrifugal force.
So I wonder if it all started with the "education" that included
"New Math" ? Wasent that about that time. ?
...lew...

In article , says...

"Ned Simmons"

What is it about the concept of centrifugal force that
peeves you so,
Phil? How do you feel about the "g-forces" one experiences
as a result
of linear acceleration?

Ned Simmons

What peeves me is the stubborn presentation of cf as fact in
reference
books when in reality it does not exist.

But it *does* exist in rotating frames of reference. You've simply
decided to confine your calculations to inertial frames (frames subject
only to uniform velocity) where cf, being a result of acceleration,
obviously cannot occur. It may make sense to exclude observations made
in non-inertial frames when teaching pure Newtonian physics, which is
perhaps what your prof was getting at, but there's no reason to limit
yourself this way if you find it convenient to do otherwise and you
recognize the consequences.

I can accept
'g-forces' in linear
acceleration, no problem there. The g-force in rotation is
centripetal
acceleration, similar to g-force in linear acceleration. A
weight swung
in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force.

Using a passenger in a car as an example, I'd say that (a)centripetal
force applied thru the tires as the car makes a turn and (b)the force
applied by the tires as the car accelerates on a straight are equivalent
and perfectly acceptable in a pure Newtonian analysis. Likewise (a)the
cf felt by the passenger in the turn and (b)the sensation of
acceleration on the straight are both inertial effects in an
accelerating frame of reference, and therefore can't exist in your
analysis. I'm not saying that's an incorrect way to model the system, on
the contrary, it's entirely consistent. But the fact that your model is
internally consistent doesn't exclude the possibility of cf in other
models that work just as well.

Ned Simmons

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:06:20 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Sorry. I will read.

But given that we are talking about Centripital Force (cf) Centrifugal
Force (cf) and Coriolis Force (cf) can we stop with the initial? G

Seriously though, it is one case where it might be an idea.

No.. Sorry. I had read it already. How does it remove centrifugal
force? It actually describes it as a "useful concept" To me
centripital force is the force that stops me moving. I in turn exert a
force on the thing that stops me moving. _What's that force_?


"Old Nick"
wrote in message

remove ns from my header address to reply via email
A
weight swung
in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal
force.
Phil

And what holds the string straight?


Nick, you need to _read_ what it says on this site. Click on
the
cf balloon and study it. Interesting stuff.........

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon
Phil

In article ,
says...
Ned Simmons wrote:

I did take at least 3 semesters of classical physics and engineering
mechanics in the early 70s and all my texts and all the engineering
references on my bookshelf that deal with the subject mention
centrifugal force, most with some mention of the frame of reference
issue. Perhaps this is a consequence of a bias towards engineering
references, but then I haven't been culling books based on the presence
of the word centrifugal in the index.
Ned Simmons

Ned I took my physics classes in the 50s and no centrifugal force.
So I wonder if it all started with the "education" that included
"New Math" ? Wasent that about that time. ?
...lew...


If anything, it seems like the push to purge centrifugal force is a
relatively recent thing in physics education. The texts and handbooks
dealing with centrifugal force I cited earlier date from 1936 to 1986. A
few websites I mentioned in an earlier post also gave me that
impression.

One page had the tone of a rant so I only skimmed it, but was struck by
the quote below because it implied that the tendency to drop centrifugal
force occurred during the author's lifetime -- or maybe he's just a
kook...
http://www.physicsnews1.com/question_5.html

"In the meantime, Modern Physics scientists will continue telling the
rest of us, for decades to come, that centrifugal force is imaginary
even as the truth to the contrary becomes widely known."


Were your courses taken in a physics or an engineering department? It'd
be interesting to see whether the the antis/pros tend to divide along
physics/engineering lines. The materials I looked at make me think this
would be the case. In general, physics references limited the definition
of force to the basic forces of nature (nuclear, electromagnetic,
gravitational), while engineering references based the definition on
F=ma. So to find a difference in the perception of centrifugal force
between engineers and physicists would not be surprising.

Ned Simmons

Brian Lawson wrote:

Hey Martin,

Thanks for that site. Excellent for a simple type like me. I bet I
could spend a week there just browsing!

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:51:25 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:


Here is a good read :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon
Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side -
select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says.

Just the facts.

Martin



It is a fantastic site - Math, Physics, Geo, Chem.... I bought the CD myself -
nice to have a local copy on my disk. The whole thing is $30 USD IIRC through paypal.
The more I look at it, the more there is! - Pictures of Minerals...

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
Brian Lawson wrote:

Hey Martin,

Thanks for that site. Excellent for a simple type like me. I bet I
could spend a week there just browsing!

Take care.

Brian Lawson,
Bothwell, Ontario.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:51:25 GMT, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:


Here is a good read :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rc.html#rotcon
Bottom of the page is a locus or balloon tree - right side -
select and hyperlink to the two - read and look at what it says.

Just the facts.

Martin



It is a fantastic site - Math, Physics, Geo, Chem.... I bought the CD
myself -
nice to have a local copy on my disk. The whole thing is $30 USD IIRC
through paypal.
The more I look at it, the more there is! - Pictures of Minerals...

Martin

That is $50 USD for the CD.
Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Ned Simmons wrote:

Were your courses taken in a physics or an engineering department? It'd
be interesting to see whether the the antis/pros tend to divide along
physics/engineering lines. The materials I looked at make me think this
would be the case. In general, physics references limited the definition
of force to the basic forces of nature (nuclear, electromagnetic,
gravitational), while engineering references based the definition on
F=ma. So to find a difference in the perception of centrifugal force
between engineers and physicists would not be surprising.

Ned Simmons


They were at Penn State in the Physics dept. I still have my text,
I think. I'll look it up if I do and supply the pertinent info.
I wanted Electronic engineering but the EE school was loaded
with power transmission and generation courses so I opted for
physics major with applicable EE courses. :-)
...lew...

Phil Kangas wrote:

"Ned Simmons"

What is it about the concept of centrifugal force that
peeves you so,
Phil? How do you feel about the "g-forces" one experiences
as a result
of linear acceleration?

Ned Simmons

What peeves me is the stubborn presentation of cf as fact in
reference
books when in reality it does not exist. I can accept
'g-forces' in linear
acceleration, no problem there. The g-force in rotation is
centripetal
acceleration, similar to g-force in linear acceleration. A
weight swung
in a circle by a string is experiencing centripetal force.
Phil

Yeah, the force restraining it from flying it away.

Tom

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:04:41 +0800, Old Nick
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:06:20 -0500, "Phil Kangas"
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

ummm...centripetal....sorry.

Old Nick wrote in message ...
ummm...centripetal....sorry.


Take a nice slow breath, Nick, it's over now, you'll be
Ok, this too shall pass.....cheers! ;) Phil

In article t,
says...
Ned Simmons wrote:

Were your courses taken in a physics or an engineering department? It'd
be interesting to see whether the the antis/pros tend to divide along
physics/engineering lines. The materials I looked at make me think this
would be the case. In general, physics references limited the definition
of force to the basic forces of nature (nuclear, electromagnetic,
gravitational), while engineering references based the definition on
F=ma. So to find a difference in the perception of centrifugal force
between engineers and physicists would not be surprising.

Ned Simmons


They were at Penn State in the Physics dept. I still have my text,
I think. I'll look it up if I do and supply the pertinent info.
I wanted Electronic engineering but the EE school was loaded
with power transmission and generation courses so I opted for
physics major with applicable EE courses. :-)
...lew...


An ME degree for me from Tufts University in 1974, though all BS
candidates took the same freshman physics course in the physics
department. The chairman of the dept, a Nobel laureate, was the lecturer
for the class and had been for many years. Long enough that he had
developed a habit of pacing the stage of the lecture hall, pausing at
one end each time he made a lap to hang his hand on a hook in the wall.
It was tradition for someone to remove the hook a few weeks into the
semester, completely throwing off the rhythm of the lecture. The hook
would be back in place for the next class.

Ned Simmons