Gimbaled Gyroscope: Do I Need Constant Torque?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Viroos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gyroscope
AI Thread Summary
The torque from the gimbal motor does not directly accelerate the flywheel; instead, it causes precessional motion at a constant angular velocity. To change the velocity of precession, the torque must be adjusted. The fixed position of the gimbal motor complicates the motion, as precession is not feasible in this setup. The required torque remains the same for accelerating the flywheel, regardless of its rotational state. However, the gyroscopic couple will create a bending moment on the gimbal shaft.
Viroos
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi !
I have very basic question about gyroscopes: do I need same torque from gimbal motor to accelerate the flywheel whenever it's rotating or not ? (and the gimbal motor is attached to the floor)

cmg.jpg


Thanks in advance :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anybody ?
 
The torque applied from the gimbal motor is not going to accelerate it, it is only going to cause precessional motion at a particular constant angular velocity. You'd have to change the torque to change the velocity of precession. The couple is equal to moment of inertia times the cross product of velocity of precession and vel. of spin.
There's something wrong with your diagram. The input couple causes precession about a perpendicular axis but this kind of motion is not possible from what is seen in the drawing.
 
Last edited:
That's what is confusing me-the gimbal motor is fixed to the floor, so the precession is impossible and the only possible rotation is "omega", and that's exactly the problem-is there any difference in the gimbal motor torque when the flywheel is rotating and when it's not ?
 
The same amount of torque will be required to accelerate the flywheel irrespective of whether it's rotating or not, but the gyroscopic couple will produce bending moment of the gimbal shaft.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top