Safety First?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Centrifugal force from the back flip


Lack of centipetal force...there is no centrifugal "force"

grin2.gif
grin2.gif
grin2.gif



Objects don't move without an acting force. Maybe it was part linear.
wink.gif


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centrifugal

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centrifugal force


ZeeOSix - you're taking the position of Maersk in this thread:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2217857/1

And, I encourage you to read through the whole thing.

To put it simply: Shannow is right.

I would not use Merriam-Webster as a foundation for a physics discussion...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
No, there is NO centrifugal force.

the "force" is centripetal, the actual force is to the centre, and the "centrifugal force" is the felt acceleration away from the linear...note in both your cited links it's described as "apparent".

Break the tether and it flies straight.


And that's why the gun flew out of the holster, because there was no opposite inward force (ie, a string) pulling it toward the center of rotation.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
The thing that holds you to the spinning drum at the fair is not centrifugal force, it's the inwards force of you being accelerated away from a straight line by the rotation and curvature of the drum.


There also has to be an opposite and equal outward force to balance the inward force in order to keep you on the spinning drum wall (do a force balance on the person). If it was just an inward force you'd be flying into the center of the drum. The gun did not have string (or was in a drum) to hold it from flying outward.

The most accurate answer is actually given by the un-tethered tennis ball on the whiteboard example in one of your previous links - linear inertia. They can call centrifugal force an "imaginary force" ... but if so why does the term even exist?
wink.gif


"But explaining the motion of the ball does not require that we imagine or dream up the existence of an outward or centrifugal force. The motion of the ball is explained by the tendency of an object in motion to continue in motion in the same direction. INERTIA!"
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
To put it simply: Shannow is right.


Yes and no ... I think we are both half way there. See my reply above.

In the case of the gun flying out of the holster, it really comes down to unrestrained linear inertia.

 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28


If you carry, don't chamber a round until ready to fire.


Genuinely horrible advice.

Carrying a weapon that is not ready to be used is negligent in, and of, itself. You guarantee that the weapon will take time to bring into action. You place yourself at a huge disadvantage.

It's analogous to not buckling your seatbelt until you sense a crash.


When it takes 1/2 second to load the chamber.

Where do these guys think they are? Do they need to be that scared and paranoid?

I hope he gets sued penniless.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There also has to be an opposite and equal outward force to balance the inward force in order to keep you on the spinning drum wall (do a force balance on the person). If it was just an inward force you'd be flying into the center of the drum. The gun did not have string (or was in a drum) to hold it from flying outward.

The most accurate answer is actually given by the un-tethered tennis ball on the whiteboard example in one of your previous links - linear inertia. They can call centrifugal force an "imaginary force" ... but if so why does the term even exist?
wink.gif


"But explaining the motion of the ball does not require that we imagine or dream up the existence of an outward or centrifugal force. The motion of the ball is explained by the tendency of an object in motion to continue in motion in the same direction. INERTIA!"


That's where you don't get it...there's an acceleration to the inwards, that is dragging the object in a circular path.

The ONLY force acting on it is the centripetal inward force providing that acceleration to make it deviate from the straight path.

The only reason the "fake" force exists as a term is not because it's real, or needed, it's just that before we knew stuff, we "felt" a "force" that wanted to fling us off the hurdie gurdie...it was NEVER a force hurling you off the hurdie gurdie.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28


If you carry, don't chamber a round until ready to fire.


Genuinely horrible advice.

Carrying a weapon that is not ready to be used is negligent in, and of, itself. You guarantee that the weapon will take time to bring into action. You place yourself at a huge disadvantage.

It's analogous to not buckling your seatbelt until you sense a crash.


When it takes 1/2 second to load the chamber.

Where do these guys think they are? Do they need to be that scared and paranoid?

I hope he gets sued penniless.



You don't carry an unloaded gun (and that's what a gun without a round in the chamber is). If you are going to put your gun into use (as a LEO, or private person, or military member in combat) you simply cannot afford to lose that second to chamber a round - if you're responding to a situation, that second might well be your last, as the adversary has the drop on you, or a tactical advantage, in which you don't have time to chamber a round.

Further, if you're injured (e.g. the gunfight opens with you taking a round to the shoulder of your support hand), you really can't chamber that round, and you lose the gunfight. You've got one good hand, and a gun that isn't ready to fire. Been nice knowin' ya'...

A gunfight that you might have won, had you been carrying an operable weapon.

Scared? Paranoid? Because you chose to have a working weapon? What's the point of carrying a weapon that isn't ready?

Do you wear your seatbelt? Why? Scared of a crash? Why not just buckle up before a crash?

Is it because you might not see that situation develop until it's too late for you to buckle up (or to load your gun)?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
There also has to be an opposite and equal outward force to balance the inward force in order to keep you on the spinning drum wall (do a force balance on the person). If it was just an inward force you'd be flying into the center of the drum. The gun did not have string (or was in a drum) to hold it from flying outward.

The most accurate answer is actually given by the un-tethered tennis ball on the whiteboard example in one of your previous links - linear inertia. They can call centrifugal force an "imaginary force" ... but if so why does the term even exist?
wink.gif


"But explaining the motion of the ball does not require that we imagine or dream up the existence of an outward or centrifugal force. The motion of the ball is explained by the tendency of an object in motion to continue in motion in the same direction. INERTIA!"

That's where you don't get it...there's an acceleration to the inwards, that is dragging the object in a circular path.

The ONLY force acting on it is the centripetal inward force providing that acceleration to make it deviate from the straight path.


There can't be any centripetal force on an unrestrained object. If it's unrestrained like the gun in the holster, or the tennis ball on the white board example or the video above, then it wants to fly outward due to the continuing linear inertia. Just like in the tennis ball example given in one of your previous links, they even elude to the "imaginary" centrifugal force ... which is what would more correctly be described as continued unrestrained linear motion.

I think I do get it ... we were both somewhat wrong in this case. It's continued linear inertial with the lack of a restraining inward acting centripetal force (ie, a string, a drum, gravity on an orbiting satellite or anything else preventing the continued linear motion of the object).
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28


If you carry, don't chamber a round until ready to fire.


Genuinely horrible advice.

Carrying a weapon that is not ready to be used is negligent in, and of, itself. You guarantee that the weapon will take time to bring into action. You place yourself at a huge disadvantage.

It's analogous to not buckling your seatbelt until you sense a crash.


When it takes 1/2 second to load the chamber.

Where do these guys think they are? Do they need to be that scared and paranoid?

I hope he gets sued penniless.



You don't carry an unloaded gun (and that's what a gun without a round in the chamber is). If you are going to put your gun into use (as a LEO, or private person, or military member in combat) you simply cannot afford to lose that second to chamber a round - if you're responding to a situation, that second might well be your last, as the adversary has the drop on you, or a tactical advantage, in which you don't have time to chamber a round.

Further, if you're injured (e.g. the gunfight opens with you taking a round to the shoulder of your support hand), you really can't chamber that round, and you lose the gunfight. You've got one good hand, and a gun that isn't ready to fire. Been nice knowin' ya'...

A gunfight that you might have won, had you been carrying an operable weapon.

Scared? Paranoid? Because you chose to have a working weapon? What's the point of carrying a weapon that isn't ready?

Do you wear your seatbelt? Why? Scared of a crash? Why not just buckle up before a crash?

Is it because you might not see that situation develop until it's too late for you to buckle up (or to load your gun)?


Flawed argument

Seatbelt argument is not comparable. Crashes happen in milliseconds.

Are you going up against the flash?

Why bother to build a safety into any gun. It takes 1/2 second to click that off as well.

You're hanging out with too many people with soldier of fortune mentality. Makes me nervous with too many like that out there on a hair trigger.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Centrifugal force from the back flip


Lack of centipetal force...there is no centrifugal "force"

grin2.gif
grin2.gif
grin2.gif
 
Shannow - I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. Sure, I'll agree there's not a "centrifugal force" per se because of semantics - even though there are definitions of it.

But as I've said a couple of times, I'd call "centrifugal force" a continued unrestrained linear inertia because that's what it is, as even described in the links and videos you posted.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette

Flawed argument

Seatbelt argument is not comparable. Crashes happen in milliseconds.

Are you going up against the flash?

Why bother to build a safety into any gun. It takes 1/2 second to click that off as well.

You're hanging out with too many people with soldier of fortune mentality. Makes me nervous with too many like that out there on a hair trigger.


Nice try at the ad hominem argument.

But it doesn't wash.

Find me one police department that carries their weapons with an empty chamber. You can't. Because that's a stupid way to carry your weapon.

Period.

The decision to have a weapon with an external safety (e.g. 1911) or not (e.g. Glock) is a whole different discussion and not germane to the discussion of carrying on an empty chamber.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Centrifugal force from the back flip


Lack of centipetal force...there is no centrifugal "force"

grin2.gif
grin2.gif
grin2.gif



There are pumps by both names as well …
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Shannow - I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. Sure, I'll agree there's not a "centrifugal force" per se because of semantics - even though there are definitions of it.

But as I've said a couple of times, I'd call "centrifugal force" a continued unrestrained linear inertia because that's what it is, as even described in the links and videos you posted.


Oh please...now you're just making stuff up.

Besides, we've already established that inertia is not a force.

There is no centrifugal force.

To have motion on a curved path, there must be a centripetal force. Once that centripetal force stops, then Newton's first law takes over.

Physics 101.
 
Well, if the FBI agent wasn't such a clown he would have been more careful picking up the gun off the floor. It goes off then he puts it back in the holster and walks off like nothing happened. Didn't he even realize a bullet fired into the crowd of people? Whoever got shot should sue him over it. I wonder if the police were called and came to investigate?
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Shannow - I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. Sure, I'll agree there's not a "centrifugal force" per se because of semantics - even though there are definitions of it.

But as I've said a couple of times, I'd call "centrifugal force" a continued unrestrained linear inertia because that's what it is, as even described in the links and videos you posted.

Oh please...now you're just making stuff up.

Besides, we've already established that inertia is not a force.

There is no centrifugal force.

To have motion on a curved path, there must be a centripetal force. Once that centripetal force stops, then Newton's first law takes over. Physics 101.


Astro - you're not reading it either. I'm making stuff up? - like what? And inertia certainly is a force - Physics 101.
grin2.gif

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/reviews/Newtons-Laws/Newtons-Laws-Review-Answers-1

Like I said before, there was also no centripetal force on the gun either (hence both I and Shannow were not entirely right) because it was not tethered or restrained in any way ... that's why it flew out of the holster in a linear manner due to continued linear inertia. That's what you're essentially saying too in your 4th sentence, so what's the disconnect here?

I've explained it a couple of times now, and the links and video Shannow posted say the same exact thing. And if someone wants to say there's no such thing as "centrifugal force" then so be it ... I really don't care - semantics IMO. Call centrifugal force the unrestrained linear inertia when centripetal force is removed, because that what it essential is.
 
Another response to the "don't carry with a round in the chamber" guy:

My gun isn't going to fire unless I touch the trigger, whether or not it is single action, double action, hammer or striker fired, or has an internal or external safety.

So, knowing that, what is the difference between carrying with a round in the chamber vs not?

With a round in the chamber the gun is ready to use. Thumbing a safety and racking a slide are not the same thing. What if the interaction is close? What if he has one of your hands? What if you're in your car?

If you carry a weapon that isn't ready to use, why do you carry?
 
How about it was catapulted off his dumb@ … Newton landed it … then the dumber end took over …
 
The safety on/off is a valid discussion because its an extra step that costs time.

I can chamber a round just as quick as clicking off a safety. Its very fast. You don't think I've handled guns?

This incident proves that some additional safeguard is required and that the glock safety mechanism is a poor design. Its a clunky garbage gun.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

billt460
My Dog Passed Away Yesterday
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
2K
billt460
shortyb
Guess its my turn, lost a dog buddy
2
Replies
27
Views
632
billt460
y_p_w
Replacing a leaky natural gas valve
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Mazomopar
Tharber
How to interview and hire the right Realtor
2
Replies
21
Views
930
AZjeff
Zee09
  • Locked
Police Officer Internal Review
Replies
16
Views
930
M56959
Back
Top