Angular veolcity in rotating frame

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the concept of angular velocity in rotating frames, particularly when comparing the definitions of angular velocity as ω and the expression r × v. The user is trying to reconcile the angular velocity vector ω, which points to the North Pole in transformation equations, with its definition as r × v, which does not align in certain scenarios. The conversation clarifies that while both terms refer to angular velocity, they apply in different contexts, and the user is advised to focus on the unique vector ω for transforming between inertial and rotating frames. The distinction between these concepts is crucial for understanding motion in a rotating frame, especially on Earth's surface. The final advice suggests to disregard the r × v formula to avoid confusion.
Ron19932017
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Hello everyone,

I have some conceptual problems understanding the rotating frame transformation.

Take the center of the Earth as inertial frame's origin and another point in Hawaii as rotating frame's origin.
In many lecture notes from internet, or Marion chapter 10.
The vector describing the rotating frame is ω, which is pointing upward to the north pole of the Earth.
However, if we think the angular velocity of rotating frame's origin as r×v. It is not directly pointing to North pole and shifted some amount.

I have read the wiki page and it used
ω = r×v
v = ω×r simultaneously, which confuses me a lot !

Can someone help me clear the concept?
I believe the answer should be ω is point to north pole in the transforming equations
but what is wrong with ω in ω = r×v ? This is the definition of angular veolcity but it seems does not match the ω in the frame transforming equations.

Thanks for you help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's clarify something indeed.

Theorem 1. There exists a unique vector ##\boldsymbol \omega## such that for every pair of points ##A,B## belonging to a rigid body it follows that
$$\boldsymbol v_A=\boldsymbol v_B+\boldsymbol\omega\times \boldsymbol{BA};$$ here ##\boldsymbol v_A,\boldsymbol v_B## are the velocities of the points ##A,B##.

Definition. The vector ##\boldsymbol\omega## is referred to as angular velocity of the rigid body.

Remark. Since a moving coordinate frame can be considered as a rigid body we also obtained the definition of the angular velocity for a frame.
2) The vector ##\boldsymbol\omega## is actually an axial vector.

To compute the angular velocity in the concrete problems the following two theorems are used.

Theorem 2. Let ##Oxyz## be a fixed Cartesian frame and another Cartesian frame ##Ox'y'z',\quad z\equiv z'## is rotating about their common axis ##z## such that
$$\boldsymbol e_{x'}=\cos\psi \boldsymbol e_x+\sin\psi \boldsymbol e_y,\quad \boldsymbol e_{y'}=-\sin\psi\boldsymbol e_x+\cos\psi \boldsymbol e_y,$$ here ##\psi=\psi(t)## is the angle of rotation.
Then the angular velocity of the frame ##Ox'y'z'## is given by the formula ##\boldsymbol \omega=\dot \psi \boldsymbol e_z##.

Theorem 3. Let ##Oxyz## be a fixed Cartesian frame. There are also two moving Cartesian frames ##O'x'y'z'## and ##O''x''y''z''##. Angular velocity of the frame ##O'x'y'z'## relative the frame ##Oxyz## is equal to ##\boldsymbol \omega_1## and the angular velocity of the frame ##O''x''y''z''## relative the frame ##O'x'y'z'## is equal to ##\boldsymbol \omega_2##.
Then the angular velocity of the frame ##O''x''y''z''## relative the frame ##Oxyz## is computed as follows
##\boldsymbol \omega=\boldsymbol \omega_1+\boldsymbol \omega_2##
 
zwierz said:
Let's clarify something indeed.

Theorem 1. There exists a unique vector ##\boldsymbol \omega## such that for every pair of points ##A,B## belonging to a rigid body it follows that
$$\boldsymbol v_A=\boldsymbol v_B+\boldsymbol\omega\times \boldsymbol{BA};$$ here ##\boldsymbol v_A,\boldsymbol v_B## are the velocities of the points ##A,B##.

Definition. The vector ##\boldsymbol\omega## is referred to as angular velocity of the rigid body.

Remark. Since a moving coordinate frame can be considered as a rigid body we also obtained the definition of the angular velocity for a frame.
2) The vector ##\boldsymbol\omega## is actually an axial vector.

To compute the angular velocity in the concrete problems the following to theorems are used.

Theorem 2. Let ##Oxyz## be a fixed Cartesian frame and another Cartesian frame ##Ox'y'z',\quad z\equiv z'## is rotating about their common axis ##z## such that
$$\boldsymbol e_{x'}=\cos\psi \boldsymbol e_x+\sin\psi \boldsymbol e_y,\quad \boldsymbol e_{y'}=-\sin\psi\boldsymbol e_x+\cos\psi \boldsymbol e_y,$$ here ##\psi=\psi(t)## is the angle of rotation.
Then the angular velocity of the frame ##Ox'y'z'## is given by the formula ##\boldsymbol \omega=\dot \psi \boldsymbol e_z##.

Theorem 3. Let ##Oxyz## be a fixed Cartesian frame. There are also two moving Cartesian frames ##O'x'y'z'## and ##O''x''y''z''##. Angular velocity of the frame ##O'x'y'z'## relative the frame ##Oxyz## is equal to ##\boldsymbol \omega_1## and the angular velocity of the frame ##O''x''y''z''## relative the frame ##O'x'y'z'## is equal to ##\boldsymbol \omega_2##.
Then the angular velocity of the frame ##O''x''y''z''## relative the frame ##Oxyz## is computed as follows
##\boldsymbol \omega=\boldsymbol \omega_1+\boldsymbol \omega_2##
Thanks for your reply zwierz.
I 100% follow and understand your paragraphs and it helps a lot.
One more question,
You mentioned that there exist a unique vector ω to transform from inertial into the rotating frame
and it is called 'angular velocity of the frame'.
Does this ω have anything to do with the r × v, 'the angular velocity of a particle' ?
Or they just share similar name but actually are different things?

I understand in the case of your thm2. The angular velocity of the frame coincide 'ω = dψ/dt ' coincide with the 'r × v of origin of rotating frame'. However the coincidence does not occur in a 3D case, say a rotating frame on Earth's surface.
 
Ron19932017 said:
Does this ω have anything to do with the r × v, 'the angular velocity of a particle' ?
I just give you an informal advice (whispering) since for sure other participants will not agree with me. Forget the formula r × v because it helps to do mistakes and nothing else.
 
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...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
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