Talk:Coriolis force/Archive 2

message: Talk:Coriolis effect/archive1
----
Some time ago I had written that the coriolis force only acts in tangential direction. I discovered that that statement of mine was wrong. The current article presents the physics better than before.
Currently, the article is huge. I'm not happy with that, but it is a very complicated subject. As I wrote earlier, I am very keen to present the physics of the coriolis effect in such a way that an understanding of the coriolis effect in atmospheric motion is prepared for as much as possible. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 00:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: William M Connolley commented:
Remove inertia section. Without judging its quality, it doesn't belong here: it belongs in inertia.
Hi William,
I agree with the removal of the inertia stuff.<BR>
The only reason for writing the section on inertia at all was to justify that in the article the physics of the coriolis effect is explained in terms of laws of motion in an inertial frame of reference.
I think that very often the importance of the pervasive presence of inertia is under-appreciated. 
Also, you removed the statement that 'the formula describes the no-drag situation'. I think you were correct in doing that. I wasn't sure at first but the formula can also be used to calculate the amount of force that is required to prevent any deflection due to coriolis effect, which is what is represented in the four diagrams. When deflection due to coriolis effect is forcefully prevented, an acccelerometer will give a reading. I propose to call that force 'anti-coriolis force'. Anti-coriolis force is to coriolis force what centripetal force is to centrifugal force; the same in magnitude, but in opposite direction. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 23:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-depth discussion of [[inertia]] belongs in Inertia article 

message: Its not uncommon to have article titles of the following form: field (physics) <BR>
Which can also be linked to by writing field, showing up as field <BR>
I wonder, would it be better if an extra article is created, with the current article coriolis effect giving a simplified exposition of the coriolis effect, and a specialized article Coriolis effect (meteorology) explaining the full coriolis effect. 
The rotating mercury mirror stuff is difficult physics, but the formula 
F=2mwv is valid only in that context, the formula F=2mwv is not valid on a flat rotating disk. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 10:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the 'rotating mercury mirror' stuff be moved to an article of its own? 

message: I have removed the reference to the bad coriolis site, because it contains bad physics. On that site it is stated:
:It is true that the Coriolis force does no work. Bad coriolis FAQ
There is more to the story than that. The coriolis force is involved in sustaining cyclonic flow. Contraction of cyclonic flow has the effect of sustaining the velocity of the cyclonic flow, and this is mediated by the coriolis force. At one end there is the pressure gradient force, and at the other end there is the kinetic energy of the velocity of the air in cyclonic flow. 
It is somewhat analogous to the sail of a sailing ship. The sail is doing work on the wind blowing into the sail, changing its direction, and the sail is doing work on the boat, pushing it through the water. When directions of work being done are added up the resultant amount of work done by the sail adds up to zero. Overall the work done on the boat, pushing it through the water is correctly assigned to the wind blowing in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the boat. But without the mediation of the sail the boat would not move. 
When directions of work are added up the work done by the coriolis force drops out of the calculation, and the physics taking place can be seen as pressure gradient force sustaining the velocity of the cyclonic flow. If the coriolis force would not do any work at all, it would not affect the flow of air masses. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove reference to 'bad coriolis' site 

message: 203.173.174.94 wrote:
:(unclear! You need to define 'the inertial frame'! Also why should the hovercraft move if it is not interacting with the mercury pool, and has no propulsion on?)
In this particular case the inertial frame is self-evident. The mercury mirror is rotating with respect to the inertial frame, hence the shape of the mercury becomes concave. The faster the rotation of the mirror with respect to the inertial frame, the stronger the concavity. In the absence of any other measuring equipment the inertial frame can still be unambiguously be identified by measuring the concavity of the mercury mirror. 
In the first example the hovercraft moves because it is released from the rim of the concave surface. Gravity pulls the hovercraft down, so the hovercraft will aquire a velocity parallel to the surface, and (initially) in the direction of lowest point. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comment by 203.173.174.94