I don't know how to answer that except to say that inertia is a concept or principle, not a quantifiable property, so the idea of "inertia increasing" is meaningless. If you disagree, what are the units of inertia?
The force is not mysterious, it's centrifugal if you're observing from the flywheel's rotating frame.
Ned Simmons
Inerta is a force at a distance measurement. On a rotating object it is the amount of weight/mass located at a distance from the center of rotation that is causing an unbalanced force/displacement of the rotating body away from its center of rotation.
John
F=MA
F(magnet)+F(centrifugal)=0 or F(magnet)+MA(centripetal)=0
No difficulty
Much the same as the root of a 3000rpm 42" turbine blade experiences a force of about 1000 long tons. It might be due to acceleration but it's still a force. No conflict. You might as well say that there is no such thing as weight. I know that my weight is 171lb, just as I know that my mass is probably 77.5kg (to the accuracy of my bathroom scales).
Mark Rand RTFM
It sounds like you're confusing mass moment of inertia with static imbalance. Mass moment of inertia is used in calculations regarding angular acceleration and torque, analogous to mass in linear acceleration/force problems. Units are mass * distance^2 .
I.e., torque = mass moment of inertia * angular acceleration :: F=ma
There's also the area moment of inertia (I, units: distance^4) for stiffness of a body in bending. And polar moment of inertia (J, units: distance^4), which is a measure of stiffness in torsion.
But as far as I know, there's no quantifiable property "inertia" used in science or engineering.
Ned Simmons
should have typed ' moment of inertia' Moment of inertia is a term used in dynamic balancing, as well as in structural mechanics.
Inertia is used to describe Newtons first law, the property of a mass to remain at a constant velocity.
John
Though I've forgotten what little I ever knew about dynamic balancing, I assume that would be mass moment of inertia.
Exactly. As I said earlier, inertia is used in a conceptual way, not as a quantifiable physical phenomenon.
Ned Simmons
All the prints we get refer just to moment,but moment of inertia or mass moment of inertia would be more correct. Much of the stuff we machine has rotary applications that require dynamic multiplane balancing. I laugh when I get the spec. as inch grams, or mm oz. It is not correct to split the units between metric and english, but then half the prints were converted from inch measurments to metric anyway.
John
snipped-for-privacy@intergrafix.net
I've seen it used both ways. Either way is probably right. Pounds feet and foot pounds mean the same thing.
John
Balancing blowers for submarines, the machine itself gave out-of-balance condition in inch-grams.
(No, I don't recall the brand name on the machine... it was ~27 years ago, after all) We'd put the air grinder to 'em and start grinding out the off-ending blower metal.
Used to be that foot-pounds specified an amount of work (think about how a hp is defined as ft-lbs/sec), while pound-feet refered to torque, in spite of the fact that my torque wrenches give units as ft-lbs.
Yup, here it is:
Introductory Applied Physics, Harris/Hemmerling, "The unit of torque... in the US is the lb-foot..."
It also notes that while the units are the same as those for work, the order is reversed.
I can make my balancer measure in any units. It depends on the calibration weight I use. I could even calibrate it in inch walnuts if I could find a standard walnut. There are standards for calibration depending on the application and rpm that the rotator operates. The one we see is a G6.3 standard. The actual oz. in. number is on the print.
There is a site that has some info on standards.
John
Thats only if you are torqueing in a clockwise direction. :) If its counter clockwise the units are reversed in order. (:
John
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.