MHB Applying rotation matrix to make inclined plane flat again

Click For Summary
To achieve a flat surface from an inclined plane, the discussion centers on using Euler angles and a rotation matrix. The proposed rotations of 45° around the x-axis and -45° around the y-axis are deemed incorrect for aligning the normal vector (1,1,1) to the z-axis. Instead, the correct angles need to be determined through vector analysis and dot products to ensure proper alignment. An alternative method that does not rely on Euler angles is also suggested. The user is in the process of refining their approach based on these insights.
Maestroo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I want to rotate an inclined plane to achieve a flat surface.
I think I can use the Euler angles to perform this operation.

Using following data:

LBp3IlS.png


and following rotation matrix

a9675abac5967c098eb5da188a8e6960.png


I think you can make the plane flat by following rotations:
1: rotation around x-axis by 45°
2: rotation around y-axis by -45°
3: no rotation around z-axis

filling in the rotation matrix:

aM7na1B.png


new Z matrix derived from 3rd row: newZ=-X*cosd(45)*sind(-45)+Y*sind(45)+Z*cosd(45)*cosd(-45);

I expect a zero matrix, but this is not the case?
What am I doing wrong?

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maestroo said:
I want to rotate an inclined plane to achieve a flat surface.
I think I can use the Euler angles to perform this operation.

Using following data:

and following rotation matrix

I think you can make the plane flat by following rotations:
1: rotation around x-axis by 45°
2: rotation around y-axis by -45°
3: no rotation around z-axis

Hi Maestroo! Welcome to MHB! ;)

I'm afraid those are not the correct angles.
From those matrices with points, we can find vectors in the plane, and from those we can find a normal vector to the plane.
The normal vector is $(1,1,1)$.
Did you find that as well?

So we want to find a rotation that rotates $(1,1,1)$ to the z-axis.
Preserving the length, that means rotating it to $(0,0,\sqrt 3)$.
Your approach works, but we'll need to find the proper angles.
First we would rotate $(1,1,1)$ around the x-axis to some $(x,0,z)$.
And then we would rotate $(x,0,z)$ around the y-axis to $(0,0,\sqrt 3)$.
However, those angles are not $45^\circ$.
We might use the dot product to figure out the correct angles, while preserving lengths and angles. (Thinking)

For the record, we can also follow a different approach that doesn't use Euler angles.
 
Ok thank you alread

I found out that the shown rotation matrix is for fixed XYZ axes (not relative), I will update later which rotation matrix I'm now using.

I found out the correct 2nd angle by drawing:
rotations - GeoGebra

Now I will search for the way to find this angle.
 

Attachments

  • 2851c9dc2031127e6dacfb84b96446d8.png
    2851c9dc2031127e6dacfb84b96446d8.png
    2.3 KB · Views: 105
Last edited:
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
794
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K