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.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top