Angular Momentum and Principal Axes of Inertia

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the formula for angular momentum \(\vec L\) in relation to principal axes of inertia for a body rotating about an arbitrary axis. The formula presented is \(\vec L = \vec u_{x} I_1 \omega_{x0} + \vec u_{y} I_2 \omega_{y0} + \vec u_{z} I_3 \omega_{z0}\), which is derived from the linear relationship between angular momentum and angular velocity, with the inertia tensor being diagonal along the principal axes. It is emphasized that while the relationship holds for principal axes, the angular momentum does not necessarily align with the rotation axis when the body rotates about an arbitrary axis. A participant expresses frustration about not understanding tensors, indicating a gap in knowledge that hinders their ability to derive the formula. The conversation highlights the complexity of the topic for those new to mechanics.
jpas
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Hi

I´m self-studying Alonso and Finn´s Mechanics and I have a question about this subject.

Let a body rotate about an arbitrary axis P having angular momentum \vec L.
Consider a referential with three perpendicular axes, X_{0} , Y_{0} , Z_{0} , which are also principal axes of inertia.
The book says we can write \vec L as

\vec L = \vec u_{x} I_1 \omega_{x0} + \vec u_{y} I_2 \omega_{y0} + \vec u_{z} I_3 \omega_{z0}

Does anybody how to derive this formula? The book usually explains things, but perhaps this is supost to be obvious.

By the way, I already know how to derive \vec L = I \vec \omega for a body rotating about a principal axis of inertia but I don´t know how to derive this one.

Thank you​
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Generally, if a rigid body is rotating about an arbitrary axis, the angular momentum need not point in the same direction as the rotation axis, as it does when \vec L = I \vec \omega (for rotation about a principal axis).

The relation between \vec L and \omega is still linear, and I is generally a tensor quantity (the inertia tensor).
An object always has three principal axes and in that coordinate system the inertia tensor is diagonal. This leads directly to:
<br /> \vec L = \vec u_{x} I_1 \omega_{x0} + \vec u_{y} I_2 \omega_{y0} + \vec u_{z} I_3 \omega_{z0} <br />
It's really the only thing it can be if you know \vec L = I \vec \omega holds for principal axes, there are three principal axes and the correspondence between \vec w and \L is linear.
 
Hello Galileo,

Thanks for the answer. Unfortunately, I couldn´t follow it because I don´t know what a tensor is. I´m still a high school student. I guess I´ll just have to use it without knowing how to derive it. which is something I really hate.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top