![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It is descending into ridiculous semantics. Semantics, popular usage
notwithstanding, concerns itself with the notion that words have specific meanings. So for example, when educated professors go to the trouble of burdening something with the moniker of "fictitious centrifugal force" they do so in the hopes that people will not in fact mistake it for a real force. Reactive and fictitious centrifugal forces are just a convenience for doing the math, and fictitious or not, the phenomena is a result of inertia, not the cause of inertia. Charles Gordon Arnaut wrote: Charles, Actually there is more than one reality when it comes to centrifugal force, namely the reactive centrifugal force and the fictitious centrifugal force -- depending on what you want to use as your reference frame. But this is quickly descending into ridiculous semantics. My original point was that if you have a flywheel with enough inertia, it will be an effective restraining force to act against excitations that would otherwise produce vibration. Naturally, higher moment of inertia in a rotating object must necessitate a higher centrifugal force. Saying that one causes the other is quite meaningless, in a chicken and egg kind of way. Regards, Gordon. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PSRU design advantages | ADK | Home Built | 74 | April 12th 06 09:31 PM |
light twins? | Bellsouth News Server | Home Built | 83 | August 12th 05 02:56 AM |
Aircraft engine certification FAR's | Corky Scott | Home Built | 4 | July 25th 03 06:46 PM |