Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hull From: hull@hao.UUCP (Howard Hull) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Rotational Inertia Message-ID: <1626@hao.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 14:43:56 EDT Article-I.D.: hao.1626 Posted: Fri Jul 12 14:43:56 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Jul-85 02:05:06 EDT References: <2596@mordor.UUCP> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 25 > 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 Sure. Two skaters spin up in opposite directions, approach each other, and then lock arms. Presto, net zero angular momentum. If the proposed theory is correct, all of the atoms in both their livers will be found to be spinning in opposite directions... Howard Hull [If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion... ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts] {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | harpo!seismo } !hao!hull