Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcrdcf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall From: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) Newsgroups: net.columbia Subject: Re: IMAX and the Shuttle flights Message-ID: <2135@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 15:24:22 EDT Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2135 Posted: Mon Jul 8 15:24:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 08:07:33 EDT References: <1306@islenet.UUCP> <900001@pbear.UUCP> <6695@Shasta.ARPA> Reply-To: lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) Organization: System Development Corp. R+D, Santa Monica Lines: 17 Summary: In article <6695@Shasta.ARPA> brain@Shasta.ARPA writes: >Since most of the spinning mass is in the film material itself, and since >that mass is initially all on the supply reel, and eventually all on the >take-up reel, if you have counter-rotating reels, the camera will initially >behave like a gyro spinning in one direction, slowing down, and changing >its direction of spin. Except that there is some mass to the reels themselves, and the emptier reel is spinning FASTER than the fuller one, and more so as it gets emptier. Perhaps there is some weight of reel which is optimal. Is the gyroscopic effect related to angular momentum or to energy? Hmm. It doesn't appear to be a linear effect in any event, since as the effective radius decreases, the rate of decrease increases. Got that? Anybody care to figure out the math of it? Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall