Simulating Spinning Rigid Bodies in 3D: Challenges and Solutions

AI Thread Summary
Creating a simulation of a spinning rigid body involves complex challenges due to the nature of 3D rotations. Rotating an object independently around the x, y, and z axes can lead to inaccuracies, such as wobbling instead of a smooth diagonal rotation when angular velocities differ. Achieving a stable resultant axis of rotation requires equal component angular velocities; otherwise, the resultant vector's direction changes as the object moves. To better understand these dynamics, studying Euler angles and their relationship to instantaneous angular velocity is recommended. Overall, simulating 3D rotations is intricate and may require extensive computational understanding.
zarcon
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi all! I am having trouble understanding how to create a simulation of a spinning rigid body.

For each axis x, y, and z I have an angle and an angular velocity.
To rotate the object each axis is rotated independently - first the rotation about the x-axis followed by the rotation about the z- axis, then the rotation about the y-axis.

I really don't think this gives an accurate representation of the way the object would spin. for example - If the x and z angular velocities are equal and the y angular velocity is zero, I imagine that would result in a rotation about a diagonal axis in the xz plane. Instead the object essentially wobbles, never quite flipping over.

Is there a way to calculate an arbitrary axis of rotation from 3 anglular velocities? or even 2 angular velocities?

I hope i explained this okay, if anyone who has had experience doing this could offer some guidance, I would really apprectiate it.

Thanks!
Jonathan
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think you will only get a stable resultant overall axis if each of the component rotational omegas is equal. If they are not equal, the resultant rotation vector (add the 3 component omega vectors) will change its direction as the object moves. Like, consider when Omega(x) is twice Omega(y), and think about how the resultant vector moves...
 
3-D rotations are NASTY.
Stay away from them!
If you are persistent, look up on Euler angles and the non-obvious manner in which the instantaneous angular velocity vector is related to them.
Goldstein's Classical Mechanics is a good start, but if you are to delve deeper into the computational issues involved, you're in it for life, I think.

As for the angular velocity vector, it is parallell to the normal of the plane of rotation at that moment.

As for the concept of "rotation axis", remember that if you go into anybody particle's rest frame, the body can be regarded as rotating about that particle with the same angular velocity as if you were in another body particle's rest frame.
But, the location of the rotation axis is in general different in the two cases.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top