Heedm
This is getting perversely pleasurable.
>"
If you apply a moment to a rotating body, the result must be a vector sum of the original angular momentum and the impressed angular momentum."<
>"
I don't see that specifying the origin of these forces creates any deeper understanding of the concepts, rather it may confuse."<
Why talk about "impressed angular momentum' when one can eliminate the middlemen, go right to the source and just say 'thrust'?
________________
>"
Yes, some of those forces are generated aerodynamically. "<
>"
Rotors are also accelerated by an internal combustion engine. Should that be in a theory on why rotors lag by 90 degrees? "<
There is only one force that is of interest. It is the only one that is variable and it is aerodynamic. The "original angular momentum" is an uninteresting constant. Or at least the RRPM better be a constant or there are serious problems.
__________
As previously mentioned, we are talking about the same thing. I prefer looking at it aerodynamically and use aerodynamic algorithms, where as you prefer to look at it dynamically and use dynamic algorithms. Are these fair statements?