B Artificial gravity rotating on two axes

[DaveC426913]

TL;DR

What would occupants experience inside a spaceship rotating on two axes?

The world building thread about a derelict spaceship got me wondering.

An object can rotate on two axes simultaneously, yes? Is that stable in flat space?

If so, what would occupants experience as gravity? Would it change over time?

 

[anuttarasammyak]

Are you imagining that if there were dwarfs in these bottles what would they experience ?

If they are floating in the hollow space in the bottle, they feel no gravity. The walls around are moving with no simple periodicity. If they have reference frame fixed with the walls, artificial gravity they feel would be complex one.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, if their spaceship were rotating, eventually air drag will bring them to the floor. There,inertia would be experienced as ersatz gravity.

 

[hutchphd]

For an object freely rotating there are two stable body axes of rotation (maximal an minimal moments of inertia). Other axes are unstable. So the rotating on two axes seems problematic.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What does it even mean to be rotating about two axes? The angular momentum points in only one direction.

 

[DaveC426913]

What does it even mean to be rotating about two axes? The angular momentum points in only one direction.

Gyroscopic precession is one way, I think. But can that happen in zero g without an applied force?

So, we take a stationary cigar-shaped spaceship, and set it spinning around its long axis.
Now we give one end a tap (or use attitude jets) to attempt to apply a rotation along a(ny) short axis.
What rotation does the ship get?

Is it always possible to sum these vectors to come up with a rotation about a single (albeit off-kilter) axis?

BTW, it is this thread/post that inspired this line of thought.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes. The book in this video, 0:17s - 0:28s, appears to be rotating about two axes simultaneously.

I'm not sure if that is an objective phenomenon, or if it only seems to be rotating about two axes because the shape of the book strongly implies three very un-arbitrary axes to our brains, and therefore it we track two axes.

So, does a single (albeit oblique) axis of rotation exist for this book?

(I think it does. I think it's here:)

 

[bland]

What does it even mean to be rotating about two axes? The angular momentum points in only one direction.

Yes, that would be like saying the Earth were rotating on multiple axes because of the wobble!

 

[Baluncore]

“The Bizarre Behavior of Rotating Bodies”.

 

[erobz]

These are spinning in two axis. I’m not sure if that is stable in space however. I’m thinking it “wants” to change axis of rotation but it can’t because of the table top?

 

[DaveC426913]

“The Bizarre Behavior of Rotating Bodies”.

Yes. I've seen this, and have thought of it. I'm not sure it answer my question, but it might be useful to @Melbourne Guy

 

[bland]

This is what I thought the OP was originally asking. Imagine a very large enclosed gravity wheel turning in space at the correct speed, like the jogger on the space station on 2001 a Space Odyssey. Now imagine that the wheel was not turning but instead it was spinning on an axis that was a diameter of the wheel and the jogger was now standing still but the wheel was turning on the diameter axis at the correct speed such that it provided the correct artificial gravity such that the person could stand still on that spot.

Now, if I understand it correctly I think the OP was asking what would be the inertial forces on the person standing still if the wheel now also began rotating around it's original hub type rotation.

 

[PeroK]

Yes, that would be like saying the Earth were rotating on multiple axes because of the wobble!

If there isn't a single axis of rotation, then (by definition) the motion is not a rotation.

 

[Filip Larsen]

A rigid object can (obviously) only have a single rotational vector at any given instance in time, but this rotation vector may not be parallel to any of the principal axes of the object in which case it is called non-pure rotation. Since "rotation around two axis at once" does not really make any sense taken literally, I guess one could take it to mean non-pure rotation, but then why not just call it that, i.e non-pure rotation. Alternatively one could say "rotation around a non-principal axis".

 

[erobz]

Since "rotation around two axis at once" does not really make any sense taken literally

I'm not understanding something, is this following scenario not considered rotation about two axis at once?

 

[PeroK]

I'm not understanding something, is this following scenario not considered rotation about two axis at once?

View attachment 301451

If we combine a rotation of angular frequency $w_x$ about the x-axis and $w_z$ about the z-axis, then we have a rotation about the axis $(w_x, 0, w_z)$, with magnitude $\sqrt{w_x^2 + w_z^2}$.

In other words, the continuous rotations add like vectors.

 

[Filip Larsen]

is this following scenario not considered rotation about two axis at once

As mentioned, any rigid object can only have a single rotation vector at any given time, but it may very well be that such a vector is not parallel with the principal axis of the object. In your drawing that would be the black center line of the cylinder plus any two orthogonal axes in the plane through center of mass and orthogonal to the center line.

But perhaps you are asking why any rotation of a rigid body can be modeled as the rotation around a single axis? If so, the best quick answer I can come up with is Euler's rotation theorem which states that any sequence of spatial rotations can always be modeled as an equivalent rotation around a single axis. With a little hand-waving you can imagine that trying to rotate a free rigid object around two axis at once by applying two orthogonal torques will "combine" into a single resulting torque giving rotation around a single unique axis at any given time.

 

[PeroK]

A few points to note.

1) If we ignore translation of the centre of mass of a rigid object, then any change to the object's position can only be a rotation.

2) As above, associated with any change in position there must be an axis and angle of rotation.

3) Although finite rotations do not commute, infinitesimal rotations do. Any continuous rotation, therefore, can be expressed as a vector $\vec w = (w_x, w_y, w_z)$.

4) If, however, the components of $\vec w$ are changing continuously in different ways, then the resulting motion is not a continuous rotation - as the axis of rotation is changing with time. In which case, we can have continuous motion that is not a continuous rotation. (Even though at each instant we can find an instantaneous axis of rotation. And, the position of the rigid body at any time must be a rotation of its initial position).

 

[Vanadium 50]

People seem confused by rotation. Is a body moving northeast going "in two directions at once"?

 

[vanhees71]

Maybe this basic primer about rigid-body dynamics helps:

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/spinning-top.pdf

The momentary rotation of the body is, of course, described by the momentary angular velocity, which is one vector. It doesn't make sense to say something is "rotating on two axes", it's just momentarily rotating around one axis given by the direction of the angular velocity.

 

[DaveC426913]

People seem confused by rotation. Is a body moving northeast going "in two directions at once"?

No, it's just very hard to conceptualize - this:

If we combine a rotation of angular frequency $w_x$ about the x-axis and $w_z$ about the z-axis, then we have a rotation about the axis $(w_x, 0, w_z)$, with magnitude $\sqrt{w_x^2 + w_z^2}$.

In other words, the continuous rotations add like vectors.

I'm going to munge some things in my head for a second:

Let's say we have a body rotating once per second about the x-axis and once per ten seconds about the z-axis.
So there is a single axis a out which this object is rotating.

It is rotating about axis (1,0,10) with magnitude $\sqrt{101}$.

 

[PeroK]

It is rotating about axis (1,0,10) with magnitude 101

Yes, but with magnitude $\sqrt{101}$ rps.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but with magnitude $\sqrt{101}$ rps.

Yes. I was off searching for the root symbol to paste in.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is rotating about axis (1,0,10)

What does this mean though? What units are those? Or are they unitless, being merely ratiotic.

 

[nasu]

Yes. I was off searching for the root symbol to paste in.

How can be rotating at about 10 rps when the two rotations have 1 rps and 0.1 rps? (or you don't mean rotations per second when you write "rps"?)

 

[PeroK]

What does this mean though? What units are those? Or are they unitless, being merely ratiotic.

It's just a direction. It doesn't need units as such.

 

[Filip Larsen]

It's just a direction. It doesn't need units as such.

Allow me to add a small note to others reading this to avoid confusion: when talking about angular velocity, and not just a rotation axis that only encodes the direction of the axis, then the magnitude of the vector (and thus each component) has the unit scale of "time^-1"; in practice the unit rad/s is very often used.

 

[vanhees71]

What does this mean though? What units are those? Or are they unitless, being merely ratiotic.

The correct unit for angular velocity is 1/s. $|\vec{\omega}|$ is the momentary change of the rotation angle per unit time.

 

[vanhees71]

It's just a direction. It doesn't need units as such.

Then you mean the unit vector defining the rotation axis, but $\vec{\omega}$ is angular velocity. You can of course write $\vec{\omega}=|\vec{\omega}| \vec{n}$. Then $\vec{n}$ is dimension less and $|\vec{n}|=1$; $\vec{\omega}$ has the dimension 1/s (in the SI).

 

[PeroK]

Then you mean the unit vector defining the rotation axis, but $\vec{\omega}$ is angular velocity. You can of course write $\vec{\omega}=|\vec{\omega}| \vec{n}$. Then $\vec{n}$ is dimension less and $|\vec{n}|=1$; $\vec{\omega}$ has the dimension 1/s (in the SI).

The tuple $(x, y, z)$ defines a direction. It doesn't need units, per se. Usually it's a normalised unit vector $(n_x, n_y, n_z)$. In any case, it's just three numbers.