Understanding Angular Velocity: Rotations and Accelerated Frames

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CrusaderSean
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frame
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of angular velocity in the context of accelerated frames and rotations. Participants explore the definitions and relationships between angular velocity and angular acceleration in both inertial and rotating frames, as well as implications for rigid bodies and moments of inertia.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the definition of angular velocity and its dependence on the frame of reference, suggesting that angular acceleration may have the same magnitude and direction in both frames, while angular velocity may not.
  • Another participant asserts that the rotating frame shares the same angular velocity as the object it follows, emphasizing that this perspective is useful for calculating moments of inertia for rigid bodies.
  • A participant reiterates that there is only one angular velocity vector that connects the base vectors of the inertial and rotating frames, indicating a shared understanding of the relationship between the two frames.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of angular velocity and its measurement from different frames. While there is some agreement on the concept of a shared angular velocity in the context of rigid bodies, the implications and interpretations of angular velocity and acceleration remain contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the definitions and relationships discussed may depend on specific assumptions about the frames and the nature of the objects involved, particularly regarding rigid versus non-rigid bodies.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and professionals in physics and engineering, particularly those studying dynamics, rotational motion, and the behavior of objects in different reference frames.

CrusaderSean
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
i'm doing accelerated frames and rotations in class right now. I'm not sure if i understand angular velocity correctly so i hope someone can correct me.

Lets say there is an inertial frame and rotating frame.
r' = distance from origin of inertial to rotating frame
P = point in rotating frame
x = P measured from rotating frame
r = P measured from fixed frame

to describe velocity of P from inertia frame, it's
[tex]\frac{dr}{dt} = \frac{dr'}{dt} + \omega \times x[/tex]

the way my textbook defined is [tex]\omega = \frac{d \phi}{dt} \hat{n}[/tex] , it points in normal direction of rotation axis. this normal direction is measured from inertial frame right? if you define the following as operator and apply it to omega:
[tex]\frac{d}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt} + \omega \times[/tex]
[tex]\frac{d \omega}{dt} = \frac{d \omega'}{dt}[/tex]
omega is observed from inertial while omega' from rotating frame. does this mean angular acceleration has same magnitude and direction in both frames, but angular velocity does not necessarily have to be the same?... kind of an odd question i guess, but i can't see how omega would have the same direction as if you measure it from different frames.

my textbook only emphasized omega is uniform for rotating (rigid) body because it does not depend on where the origin is in the rotating frame.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have one frame that is 'fixed' and one frame that rotates along with the object (this does NOT necessarily have to be the case ofcourse). So when looking in the fixed frame, the object rotates but when looking in the rotating frame, the object does not move. The omega expresses the rotation of the object but the clue is that the rotating frame has the exact same angular velocity omega, because it rotates along with the object. This way of working is especially usefull when calculating the moments of inertia for rigid rotators (ie not pointlike objects but solid objects like an apple). Why ? Well, because when you are calculating this tensor in the rotating frame (the object does not move here) this tensor will reduce to a diagonal matrix.

marlon
 
Besides, there is only one omega which is the instantaneous rotation vector of the rotating frame wtr to the 'fixed' inertial frame. This omega really connects the base-vectors of these two frames.

marlon
 
marlon said:
Besides, there is only one omega which is the instantaneous rotation vector of the rotating frame wtr to the 'fixed' inertial frame. This omega really connects the base-vectors of these two frames.

marlon

i see. that makes more sense then. thanks for the clarification.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
5K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K