I 2 Questions About the Gyroscope Effect

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnls
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gyroscope
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the gyroscope effect, particularly the relationship between torque and angular momentum. It clarifies that torque can be calculated from any reference point without affecting the outcome, as it can be viewed as a "couple" of forces. The conversation also explains that the approximation of angular momentum being purely horizontal is valid for rapidly spinning gyroscopes but fails at low angular momentum, where precession rates can exceed rotation rates, leading to instability. Additionally, the concept of nutation and the need for a three-dimensional analysis are introduced to fully understand gyroscopic behavior. Overall, the complexities of gyroscopic motion and torque calculations are emphasized.
Johnls
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I'm talking here about this situation:
phys2_8f_15a.png

The explanation which is usually given as to why there is a precession, is that the torque is perpendicular to the angular momentum and the angular momentum changes in the direction of the torque.
A few things I don't understand about it:

1. The torque is relative to point O but the angular momentum is relative to the center of the wheel. When you derive that torque is the change in the angular momentum, don't you assume that they are both calculated relative to the same point?

2. Why doesn't it work for low angular momentums?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Johnls said:
1. The torque is relative to point O but the angular momentum is relative to the center of the wheel. When you derive that torque is the change in the angular momentum, don't you assume that they are both calculated relative to the same point?
Two points...

A torque can be viewed as a "couple" -- a pair of equal and opposite forces separated by a distance that is not parallel to the forces. It does not matter where you choose to place the reference point when calculating the torque from a couple. You always get the same answer.

Point O lies on the axis of rotation anyway.
2. Why doesn't it work for low angular momentums?

The idea that the angular momentum of a gyroscope is purely horizontal, that it does not deflect downward at all under a vertical force and that the motion associated with the precession has no associated angular momentum is an approximation. For a rapidly spinning gyroscope, it is a good approximation. In first year physics courses one is usually exposed to angular momentum primarily as it applies in two dimensions. In that setting, one considers the gyroscope to be rotating in two dimensions and precessing in the third.

The full three dimensional treatment involves the notion of a "nutation" and analysis using tensors.

One simple way of seeing that the precession model cannot work for low angular momentum is to consider what happens as the rotation rate gets lower and lower. The precession rate gets higher and higher. If you get to a point where the precession rate is higher than the rotation rate, it's pretty clear that you're not considering a gyroscope that is spinning on its intended axis. Instead, it is rotating around a different instantaneous axis. And that axis may keep changing over time.

A gyroscope that is not spinning at all does not precess infinitely fast. It just flops down.
 
  • Like
Likes Johnls
jbriggs444 said:
Two points...

A torque can be viewed as a "couple" -- a pair of equal and opposite forces separated by a distance that is not parallel to the forces. It does not matter where you choose to place the reference point when calculating the torque from a couple. You always get the same answer.

Point O lies on the axis of rotation anyway.The idea that the angular momentum of a gyroscope is purely horizontal, that it does not deflect downward at all under a vertical force and that the motion associated with the precession has no associated angular momentum is an approximation. For a rapidly spinning gyroscope, it is a good approximation. In first year physics courses one is usually exposed to angular momentum primarily as it applies in two dimensions. In that setting, one considers the gyroscope to be rotating in two dimensions and precessing in the third.

The full three dimensional treatment involves the notion of a "nutation" and analysis using tensors.

One simple way of seeing that the precession model cannot work for low angular momentum is to consider what happens as the rotation rate gets lower and lower. The precession rate gets higher and higher. If you get to a point where the precession rate is higher than the rotation rate, it's pretty clear that you're not considering a gyroscope that is spinning on its intended axis. Instead, it is rotating around a different instantaneous axis. And that axis may keep changing over time.

A gyroscope that is not spinning at all does not precess infinitely fast. It just flops down.

First of all, thanks for the reply!
Could you please expand a little bit on how torque can be viewed as a "couple"? How can I do this conversion? How does it relate to the Gyro example?
 
Johnls said:
First of all, thanks for the reply!
Could you please expand a little bit on how torque can be viewed as a "couple"? How can I do this conversion? How does it relate to the Gyro example?
For the gyroscope, you have an upward force at point O from the support and a downward force from gravity at the center of gravity (a distance r from point O).

Pick any origin you like and compute the torque from the force at point O plus the torque from the force at the center of gravity. Then pick a different origin and compute it again. The two forces are a "couple" and the net torque they produce will be independent of the origin that you pick.
 
  • Like
Likes Johnls
jbriggs444 said:
For the gyroscope, you have an upward force at point O from the support and a downward force from gravity at the center of gravity (a distance r from point O).

Pick any origin you like and compute the torque from the force at point O plus the torque from the force at the center of gravity. Then pick a different origin and compute it again. The two forces are a "couple" and the net torque they produce will be independent of the origin that you pick.

Oh I see... Thanks!
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top