We surely do observe it. Regardless of what your mathematical frame of reference may be, the camera doesn’t have to be moving with the axle to aid in our understanding of what’s happening there. There are plenty of science museums that have interactive exhibits showcasing the Coriolis effect; the phenomenon can be observed and understood even though the observer (in this case the museum guest) is in a stationary frame of reference.
Found this listing. It says “no moving parts,” but that doesn’t mean it’s a Coriolis meter; it could be ultrasonic (though probably not, those aren’t cheap either), or it could be measuring the pressure drop across an orifice.
This video “The Coriolis effect” demonstrates my point about which frame of reference the Coriolis effect is observed. When the camera shows the device in rotation, the thrown ball follows a straight line, as Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion predicts. Only when the camera is rotating with the device, such that the device is stationary, do we see the thrown ball follow a curved line, that acceleration is the Coriolis effect.
Spalding was not injured during the filming of this video.
In the video posted in Machine Elf’s post #73, all the motion we observe is of the first case, the room is stationary, it is the apparatus that is in motion. All these motions can be described using the 2nd Law and the momentum vector.
Rock fights on merry-go-rounds … any observer standing on the solid Earth will see straight line trajectories … only the observers on the merry-go-round see the deflections caused by the Coriolis force. It’s all about frame of reference.
Yeah, I can’t find anywhere in their literature that says explicitly that the iPerl is a mass flow meter … so it most likely isn’t and I’ll humbly withdraw any statements concerning mass flow meters being cheap enough for local residential service … my apologies.