Heedm:
Your diplomacy is impressive in exposing Lu's lack of understanding. And the basic understanding which you give is so desperately lacking in much of the helicopter world.
You wrote:
"Actually, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
If you sit on a sled on some ice and throw a brick, the action is the brick moving. The reaction is you moving. The only force involved is the one your muscles created. That force is directed from your hand towards the brick. It is not directed from the brick towards your hand.
On anything that spins, the action is pulling inward to prevent outboard masses from flying off tangentially. The reaction is an equal and opposite pull on the hub………"
So.. when you make the action (which in this case is good to call a force, since not all forces are actions and forces really do have equal and opposite forces, I'm sure he meant Force BTW) on this brick what is the name of the force which squashes an impression of the name of the brick manufacturer on the skin of your hand? It is of course the brick's inertial desire not to be accelerated by virtue of it's mass. That equal and opposite force (back on your hand by the brick) can be found, knowing what it's accn was and knowing it's mass, by : F=ma or alternatively it's just measuring how hard you push it and realising it's the equal and opposite force back on your hand.
You say : "The reaction is an equal and opposite pull on the hub……" … that's what people call centrifugal.
Don't get me wrong I'm really with you on this one, but you can see other people have tried to dilute the Great Man's clear message.:
" Hegel's attack on Newton's theory of the heavenly motions (pp. 97 ff.) is of the same character. Newton explained the heavenly motions by the combination of two separate forces, one an impressed centrifugal, the other an attractive or centripetal force. Hegel's objection to this separation of them is no less great than to Kant's assertion of the distinct independence of repulsion and attraction. Hegel does not deny the convenience of the distinction, but he accuses Newton of mistaking the directions into which the motion is resolved for real and actual forces, independent of each other (p. 102). But these two forces are not different and independent, but identical in the same way as repulsion and attraction, two elements of the total motion which involve each other: they are not combin……"etc.
The importance of the equal and opposite force from the inertial desire of things not to be acctd is being lost…
I'm with Newton on this one…