What a nonsense. Of course, in an inertial frame of reference there are no inertial forces, but they are very useful to analyze motions in non-inertial frames like, e.g., the reference frames we use everyday in the lab, i.e., a rest frame wrt. a point (our position) on the surface of the Earth. It's almost always enough to neglect the acceleration, but one of the most famous demonstrations of the Earth's rotation around its axis is Foucault's pendulum. There usually the centrifugal part of the inertial forces is, however, neglected (rightfully), but the Coriolis force must be taken into account.Argonaut said:I've just come across the following line while studying (Young & Freedman) and found it amusing.
It sounds like a dirty family secret we discuss once and then should never mention again![]()
How should we call centrifugal pumps, fans and compressors?Argonaut said:I've just come across the following line while studying (Young & Freedman) and found it amusing.
It sounds like a dirty family secret we discuss once and then should never mention again![]()
You either use the terms as they appear in the manufacturer's literature or spend a lot of time explaining to people why they are misnamed. In process technology, pumps move liquids only, and compressors move gasses only. So by that convention a vacuum pump should be called a vacuum compressor. But the manufacturers disagree!Lnewqban said:How should we call centrifugal pumps, fans and compressors?
Centripetal fluid accelerator machines?
Note that in an inertial frame the rim of the wheel exerts a centripetal force on Mr. Bond. But Mr. Bond exerts a centrifugal force on the rim of the wheel.kuruman said:Some of you have seen this already when a similar discussion flared up and I apologize for the repetition. I resisted at first, but it is worth reviving because it encapsulates the controversy well.
But they are not misnamed. The name depends on an equivalent frame of reference in which the working principles are formulated.Mister T said:You either use the terms as they appear in the manufacturer's literature or spend a lot of time explaining to people why they are misnamed.
CAUTION Avoid using “centrifugal force” Figure 5.30 shows both a correct free-body diagram for uniform circular motion (Fig. 5.30a) and a common incorrect diagram (Fig. 5.30b). Figure 5.30b is incorrect because it includes an extra outward force of magnitude v^2/R to “keep the body out there” or to “keep it in equilibrium.” There are three reasons not to include such an outward force, usually called centrifugal force (“centrifugal” means “fleeing from the center”). First, the body does not “stay out there”: It is in constant motion around its circular path. Because its velocity is constantly changing in direction, the body accelerates and is not in equilibrium. Second, if there were an additional outward force that balanced the inward force, the net force would be zero and the body would move in a straight line, not a circle (Fig. 5.29). And third, the quantity m(v^2/R) is not a force; it corresponds to the m\vec{a} side of \sum\vec{F} = m\vec{a} and does not appear in \sum\vec{F} (Fig. 5.30a). It’s true that when you ride in a car that goes around a circular path, you tend to slide to the outside of the turn as though there was a “centrifugal force.” But we saw in Section 4.2 that what really happens is that you tend to keep moving in a straight line, and the outer side of the car “runs into” you as the car turns (Fig. 4.11c). In an inertial frame of reference there is no such thing as “centrifugal force.” We won’t mention this term again, and we strongly advise you to avoid using it as well
While we're at it, let's swap the sign on the electron charge so electron flow matches conventional current!bob012345 said:Why not just rename the centripetal force as the centrifugal force, the force a centrifuge accelerates an object towards the center of motion?
I think that's a very positive suggestion.Ibix said:While we're at it, let's swap the sign on the electron charge so electron flow matches conventional current!
Indeed, and I can't see any negatives either.bob012345 said:I think that's a very positive suggestion.
Ok, we should put you in charge of the process at the current time.Ibix said:Indeed, and I can't see any negatives either.
Why not rename resistance to voltage? Why not rename force to energy?bob012345 said:Why not just rename the centripetal force as the centrifugal force,
I didn't mean to mislead anyone, and if I did, I apologise. I'm probably just too ignorant of physics to even realise. I just found the authors' insistence on avoiding the term funny - that's all!Vanadium 50 said:@Argonaut played a trick on you all, and he got you real good. Ha ha ha! The joke's on you!
Here is the whole thing in context:
So, they are not saying there is never utility in inertial forces. They are saying not to misuse the concept, and 10% of the way through a first course of physics is not the place.
Excellent idea! That would be the first step towards a one-size-fits-all Theory of Everything. For example,Vanadium 50 said:Why not call everything "Bruce", just to prevent confusion?
You did fine and, as you can see, people had fun here.Argonaut said:I didn't mean to mislead anyone, and if I did, I apologise. I'm probably just too ignorant of physics to even realise. I just found the authors' insistence on avoiding the term funny - that's all!
There's more than one concept that students will have heard of but it's better to avoid (at least initially) because they always lead to confusion in novice hands. So you will occasionally come across "I know you know this word and I know you're expecting me to use it but I'm not going to". I suspect it's not an easy thing to use a concept enough to explain why you're not going to use it without using it too much.Argonaut said:I didn't mean to mislead anyone, and if I did, I apologise. I'm probably just too ignorant of physics to even realise. I just found the authors' insistence on avoiding the term funny - that's all!
It is a radial outward force, but it is not the fictitious force that appears in the rotating non-inertial frame and is generally called “centrifugal”. That fictitious force acts on Bond, not the rim of the wheel.Mister T said:But Mr. Bond exerts a centrifugal force on the rim of the wheel.
Just keep in mind that in Italian, "voltae" means to "turn".Ibix said:While we're at it, let's swap the sign on the electron charge so electron flow matches conventional current!
A gas compressor compresses a gas. A liquid pump moves a liquid. A vacuum "device" neither compresses nor moves a vacuum. However, it may do both moving oil and compressing gases. So maybe we should just call it a "vacuum maker". Or maybe just Mister Vacuum.Mister T said:You either use the terms as they appear in the manufacturer's literature or spend a lot of time explaining to people why they are misnamed. In process technology, pumps move liquids only, and compressors move gasses only. So by that convention a vacuum pump should be called a vacuum compressor. But the manufacturers disagree!
No, there is established terminology for centuries, and if you use it right, there's no problem. Inertial forces by definition occur only in non-inertial frames. That's all.bob012345 said:Why not just rename the centripetal force as the centrifugal force, the force a centrifuge accelerates an object towards the center of motion?
Who says we must be slaves of old confusing terminology? Langauge changes. New students won't be confused.vanhees71 said:No, there is established terminology for centuries, and if you use it right, there's no problem. Inertial forces by definition occur only in non-inertial frames. That's all.
Vanadium 50 said:Why not rename resistance to voltage? Why not rename force to energy?
Why not call everything "Bruce", just to prevent confusion?
I think you may well have something there. It does rely on teachers having a higher level of Science knowledge, though.bob012345 said:Who says we must be slaves of old confusing terminology? Langauge changes. New students won't be confused.
In this case, I don't see any confusion. Centripetal and centrifugal forces are well-defined for centuries.bob012345 said:Who says we must be slaves of old confusing terminology? Langauge changes. New students won't be confused.
No, I was suggesting changing the name of the latter to the former because that's the more common word in people's minds. It was a sort of tongue in cheek but also half serious comment.Vanadium 50 said:Are people arguing that centrifugal and centripetal force are the same thing and the two names are what's confusing? That is not the case.
I doubt changing the names would do anything besides increasing confusion. Of which there is already plenty.bob012345 said:but also half serious comment.
There is also the matter of the 3000yr etymology of the word from Latin centrum (see center) + -fugus ‘fleeing’ (from fugere ‘flee’). This is just ridiculous.bob012345 said:No, I was suggesting changing the name of the latter to the former because that's the more common word in people's minds. It was a sort of tongue in cheek but also half serious comment.
Does that really matter in the grand scheme of things?hutchphd said:There is also the matter of the 3000yr etymology of the word from Latin centrum (see center) + -fugus ‘fleeing’ (from fugere ‘flee’). This is just ridiculous.
Depends on your frame of reference.sophiecentaur said:It leaves on a tangent and is not 'thrown outwards', as school kids had been told by generations of non-physicists.
Why do we call an inertial frame one that does not have inertial forces but a non-inertial frame is one that does?jbriggs444 said:Depends on your frame of reference.
Viewed from the rotating frame, it begins accelerating radially outward. But then begins curving due to the addition of Coriolis to the centrifugal force.
Viewed from an inertial frame, it moves tangentially in a straight line as the platform accelerates away in its circular path.
Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?bob012345 said:Why do we call an inertial frame one that does not have inertial forces but a non-inertial frame is one that does?
Of course it does. But a school student is standing, looking at the event and frames of reference are not dealt with early on in school. Just ask a kid to draw a spinning disc and what will happen to an object when released from the edge. 100:1 they will draw a radial line (or a curve). This is the level that we're (I'm) dealing with and, to my mind, forbidding centrifugal force is forgivable at that stage. Using the concept of a fictitious force could turn the whole business into magic and we don't want that.jbriggs444 said:Depends on your frame of reference.
In my experience the main confusion comes from not clearly distinguishing centrifugal force (an "inertial force", only present in the description of the motion in a non-inertial frame) and centripetal force (a "true force" occuring in the description of the motion in a non-inertial frame).Vanadium 50 said:Are people arguing that centrifugal and centripetal force are the same thing and the two names are what's confusing? That is not the case.