Optimizing Gymnastics Flips: Calculating Rotation Rate with Moment of Inertia

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryan_Schultz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Project Stuck
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physics of gymnastics flips, specifically focusing on calculating the rotation rate and moment of inertia for different flip positions (tuck, twist, layout, pike). Participants explore the relationship between theoretical calculations and experimental data, addressing potential sources of error and the dynamics involved in the flips.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their project involving measuring the rotation rate of various gymnastics flips and comparing calculated moment of inertia with experimental data, noting discrepancies.
  • Another participant suggests that the gymnast's non-uniform body structure could affect center of mass and moment of inertia calculations.
  • Some participants highlight the presence of experimental error, including the variability of the gymnast's body shape during flips and the precision of timing measurements.
  • There is a discussion about the effects of torque on rotation times, with one participant proposing that different flips may involve different torques, which could influence the results.
  • Several participants engage in clarifying the relationships between angular velocity, angular acceleration, and the time of rotation, with some disagreement on the correct notation and interpretation of formulas.
  • One participant mentions that air friction might play a role in the results, although it may not significantly affect the overall findings.
  • Another participant reflects on their method of calculating moment of inertia by dividing the body into sections and compares it with simplified inertia equations, indicating that most errors may stem from torque issues.
  • There is a question raised about the validity of comparing moment of inertia ratios to experimental ratios, with some participants suggesting that this is acceptable if certain conditions are met.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the sources of error in the calculations and the implications of torque on the results. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the best approach to reconcile theoretical and experimental findings.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential inaccuracies in measuring moment of inertia due to the gymnast's changing body shape, the precision of timing measurements, and assumptions about torque application during flips. The discussion also highlights the complexity of relating moment of inertia ratios to experimental timing ratios.

Ryan_Schultz
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am currently working on a physics project. The idea is a measure rate of rotation of different gymastics flips (i.e tuck, twist, layout, pike). I calculated the moment of inertia for each of the different positions. I then taped a gymnast preforming the different flips on a trapoline. I then found how long it takes her to do one full rotation for each position. This was done repeatley for each position. I then took the ratio the different positions. I am trying to get my math calcs to support my experimental data. I tried taking the ratio of the moment of inertia of the positions. I thought that would match up with the experimental ratio, but it didn't. They were in the same order but the values were off. IF you have any ideas about what I should do, or if you think it is because of experimental error please tell me. I am open to any advice. Thanks for you time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you considered that the non-uniform construction of the body could be affecting your center of mass and moment of inertia calculations? Though I don't know how big of a factor that'd be since I don't know much about anatomy.
 
of course there is experimental error, you do not know the exact moment of inertia, moreover the moment of inertia will not be constant during the flips because the body is not stiff but changes shape (at least a little) during the flips and you will not measure the timing precise, but well that is obvious...

Another thing is that the torques are probably not equal when the gymnast does different flips, which affects the rotation times:

[tex]\tau = I\alpha \Leftrightarrow \alpha = \frac{\tau}{I}[/tex]
[tex]\omega = \alpha{\Delta{t}}[/tex]

so the duration of one rotation is:

[tex]t = \frac{2\pi}{\omega} \Leftrightarrow<br /> t = \frac{2\pi}{\alpha\Delta{t}} \Leftrightarrow <br /> t = \frac{2\pi{I}}{\tau\Delta{t}}[/tex]

One thing that you could do is using your approximation of the moment of inertia, the rotation times you measured and an estimate of how long the torque was applied (perhaps you can get this from the videotapes) to determine what the torques where:
[tex]\tau = \frac{2\pi{I}}{t\Delta{t}}[/tex]

EDIT: I think it may even be quite interesting if you can show that the gymnast uses different torques for the different flips.
 
Last edited:
gerben said:
[tex]\tau = I\alpha \Leftrightarrow \alpha = \frac{\tau}{I}[/tex]
[tex]\omega = \alpha{\Delta{t}}[/tex]

so the duration of one rotation is:

[tex]t = \frac{2\pi}{\omega} \Leftrightarrow<br /> t = \frac{2\pi}{\alpha\Delta{t}} \Leftrightarrow <br /> t = \frac{2\pi{I}}{\tau\Delta{t}}[/tex]

[tex]\tau = \frac{2\pi{I}}{t\Delta{t}}[/tex]

You probably ment
[tex]\omega = \frac{\alpha}{\Delta t}[/tex]

So the final formula states:
[tex]t = \frac{2\pi}{\omega} \Leftrightarrowt = \frac{2\pi\Delta t}{\alpha}\Leftrightarrow t = \frac{2\pi I\Delta t}{\tau}[/tex]
 
dextercioby said:
You probably ment
[tex]\omega = \frac{\alpha}{\Delta t}[/tex]

So the final formula states:
[tex]t = \frac{2\pi}{\omega} \Leftrightarrowt = \frac{2\pi\Delta t}{\alpha}\Leftrightarrow t = \frac{2\pi I\Delta t}{\tau}[/tex]

No, [itex]\omega[/itex] is the angular velocity and [itex]\alpha[/itex] is the angular acceleration, so [itex]\omega=\alpha\Delta{t}[/itex]
 
Air friction could play a small role here as well, and it would have a variable effect due to the varying positions of the gymnast. This should not have too large an effect on results, however.
 
gerben said:
No, [itex]\omega[/itex] is the angular velocity and [itex]\alpha[/itex] is the angular acceleration, so [itex]\omega=\alpha\Delta{t}[/itex]

For me,[tex]\alpha,\beta,\theta,\vartheta[/tex] and so on and so forth are (in classical context) notations for angles.When taught mechanics in school,it was [tex]\epsilon[/tex] the Greek letter that designated angular acceleration.Let's call it a misinterpretation of the notation used.I agree with it.
Still,you probably meant [itex]\Delta\omega=\alpha\Delta{t}[/itex][/QUOTE],right?
:wink:
 
dextercioby said:
For me,[tex]\alpha,\beta,\theta,\vartheta[/tex] and so on and so forth are (in classical context) notations for angles.When taught mechanics in school,it was [tex]\epsilon[/tex] the Greek letter that designated angular acceleration.Let's call it a misinterpretation of the notation used.I agree with it.
Still,you probably meant [itex]\Delta\omega=\alpha\Delta{t}[/itex]right?
:wink:

No you are wrong, just face it please!
 
dextercioby said:
For me,[tex]\alpha,\beta,\theta,\vartheta[/tex] and so on and so forth are (in classical context) notations for angles.When taught mechanics in school,it was [tex]\epsilon[/tex] the Greek letter that designated angular acceleration.Let's call it a misinterpretation of the notation used.I agree with it.
Still,you probably meant [itex]\Delta\omega=\alpha\Delta{t}[/itex],right?
:wink:

No, acceleration is how much velocity changes per time unit. In this case the angular acceleration is applied for a short time [itex]\Delta{t}[/itex], so the angular velocity ([itex]\omega[/itex]) after this time will be [itex]\alpha\Delta{t}[/itex].
 
  • #10
I truly appreciate everone who wrote, it was very interesting. My method of calculating the moment of inertia did divded the body in eight sections. I compared that moment of inertia with the simplified sphere or rod inertia equations. The results were comparable. I believe, as stated by gerben, that most of the error is coming from torque issues. How would I measure how long the torque was applied? One more thought: I know that ratios do not have units, but is it a mistake to compare moment of inertia ratios to experimental ratios(i.e seconds per flip). Once again your time is truly appreciated. Thanks
 
  • #11
Ryan_Schultz said:
I truly appreciate everone who wrote, it was very interesting. My method of calculating the moment of inertia did divded the body in eight sections. I compared that moment of inertia with the simplified sphere or rod inertia equations. The results were comparable. I believe, as stated by gerben, that most of the error is coming from torque issues. How would I measure how long the torque was applied?

The gymnast can only apply force when in contact with the trampoline. You do not really know whether torque is applied during all the time contact is made, but I would just use this time as the best possible approximation (assuming that in all flips torque is applied during a similar percentage of the contact time).

Ryan_Schultz said:
One more thought: I know that ratios do not have units, but is it a mistake to compare moment of inertia ratios to experimental ratios(i.e seconds per flip). Once again your time is truly appreciated. Thanks

that would be ok if the torques (and the time the toques are applied) are equal, from the formula below you can see that the time of a rotation is proportional to the moment of inertia, they differ by a factor [itex]\frac{2\pi}{\tau\Delta t}[/itex], so if this factor is constant it will have no effect on the ratios.

[tex]t = I\times\frac{2\pi}{\tau\Delta t}[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K