General vehicle thread

[Gman]

http://m.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsSer...dex.htm#tabs-4

[Irving]

Interesting....

Side note, pretty annoying that they kept saying "centrifugal force."

[MrPrena]

^
That is what physicist would have said.

[Irving]

No way, one of my only takeaways from high school physics is that "centrifugal force" doesn't exist. It's just inertia. I don't know why companies/people still use the term.

[Gman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

It's conceptual and descriptive. Just using "inertia" makes explanation difficult.

Centrifugal force is an outward force apparent in a rotating reference frame.^[1][2][3] It does not exist when a system is described relative to an inertial frame of reference. All measurements of position and velocity must be made relative to some frame of reference. For example, an analysis of the motion of an object in an airliner in flight could be made relative to the airliner, to the surface of the Earth, or even to the Sun.^[4] A reference frame that is at rest (or one that moves with no rotation and at constant velocity) relative to the "fixed stars" is generally taken to be an inertial frame. Any system can be analyzed in an inertial frame (and so with no centrifugal force). However, it is often more convenient to describe a rotating system by using a rotating frame—the calculations are simpler, and descriptions more intuitive. When this choice is made, fictitious forces, including the centrifugal force, arise.

In a reference frame rotating about an axis through its origin, all objects, regardless of their state of motion, appear to be under the influence of a radially (from the axis of rotation) outward force that is proportional to their mass, to the distance from the axis of rotation of the frame, and to the square of the angular velocity of the frame.^[5][6] This is the centrifugal force. As humans usually experience centrifugal force from within the rotating reference frame, e.g. on a merry-go-round or vehicle, this is much more well-known than centripetal force.

Motion relative to a rotating frame results in another fictitious force: the Coriolis force. If the rate of rotation of the frame changes, a third fictitious force (the Euler force) is required. These fictitious forces are necessary for the formulation of correct equations of motion in a rotating reference frame^[7][8] and allow Newton's laws to be used in their normal form in such a frame (with one exception: the fictitious forces do not obey Newton's third law: they have no equal and opposite counterparts).^[7]

^{In a long-range shooting context, is Coriolis force not a 'thing' either?}

[Irving]

Coriolis effect has zero to do with the fantasy of "centrifugal force." Using that term doesn't make anything easier to explain. Inertia is about as simple as it gets.

EDIT: After reading that paragraph you posted, I'd say that yes, Coriolis "Force" is not a thing. I've never even heard it described that way. I've heard Coriolis effect, which seems more accurate. In no way is it a force.

[Gman]

Then you don't want anything GM truck related. They use those fantasy things in the diff.

[Irving]

I read online that they have a reputation for exploding, but it sound like it's mostly from people putting on oversized tires and mashing on the gas while off-roading, which is really the recipe to explode any diff or axle. No need to get sassy about it. There is no such thing as centrifugal force so no one should use the term. We bitch about the use of clips, one time use magazines, guns that for 30 rounds a second, and shoulder things that go up. Those are all either incorrect terms, inaccurate definitions, or just don't plain exist. Same thing.

[Gman]

What do you call a centrifuge in Irving land?

[Irving]

A machine, called a centrifuge, that uses inertia to separate materials.

I'm not sure why you're taking such an issue with this.