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