Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mordor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!mordor!@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:jrv@mitre-bedford
From: @S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:jrv@mitre-bedford
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Rotational Inertia
Message-ID: <2596@mordor.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 13:20:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: mordor.2596
Posted: Wed Jul 10 13:20:50 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:00:29 EDT
Sender: daemon@mordor.UUCP
Lines: 17

From: jrv@Mitre-Bedford


> I've been watching the comments concerning ways to overcome the gyroscopic
> inertia problem with the OMNIMAX cameras with growing disbelief. The 'fix'
> seems to consist of a second counterrotating mass whose angular momentum
> is matched by various means to that of the filmreel. It won't work, of course.
> Adding a second rotating mass, counterrotating, at right angles, or
> whatever will simply *ADD* to the problem by creating more angular
> momentum. You might as well try to 'cancel' some mass by adding some
> mass in another place; it just doesn't work that way.

Of course it works that way.  The angular momentum of a collection of
masses is a vector sum of the angular momenta of the masses, so it's
possible for the sum to come to zero.  Can anyone think of a simple
demonstration?
				      - Jim Van Zandt