I don't dispute the bead accelerates. I showed you why mathematically it must acceleratehere. I also showed you thatin that case there is only one force acting on the bead, that being due to the rod.
In the current case (constant angular velocity) the bead accelerates, because it has mass and because mass has interia and because it is rotating but there are no forces acting on it. Accelerometers measure acceleration despite what some web page says.
Its a diction thing. If you believe like I do that words have meaning and that its not appropriate to pervert those meanings to ones personal advantange then we must work with the words (language) we're given. In an earlier post mandrin agreed like I do with the only two valid uses for the words "centrifugal force" that are listed in wikipedia. That means he cannot turn around and use the term inappropriately (and then excoriate those who do use it appropriately like J. Kuykendall et al).
You see BB the words acceleration and force are not synonymous. The bead accelerates but there's no CF.
PS.. he didn't conduct an experiment... it was purely hypothetical
Actually I am Totally Confused..... I Read His.... I Read Yours.... I Google etc.... They all Make Sense when I Read them.... One thing that really bothers me about His is where's the Other Sock.... Doesnt His Break Newton's 3rd Commandment... Ie.. Forces are Like Socks they Come in Pairs......