Confused by wikipedia on (torque-free) precession

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of torque-free precession as described in Wikipedia, particularly regarding the relationship between angular momentum (L), moment of inertia (I), and spin angular velocity (ωs). It highlights the distinction between analyzing these quantities in a stationary frame versus a moving frame, noting that while L can be constant in the absolute frame, its components may appear to change when viewed from a moving frame. Participants clarify that defining angular momentum in the moving frame is often more intuitive, as it remains fixed relative to the rotating body. The conversation concludes that while both frames can be used for analysis, the stationary frame simplifies demonstrating changes in ω, while the moving frame is better for deriving equations. Understanding these perspectives enhances clarity in the study of precession dynamics.
nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Hello, I quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession from the first paragraph from the first section ("Torque-free precession"):

For example, when a plate is thrown, the plate may have some rotation around an axis that is not its axis of symmetry. This occurs because the angular momentum (L) is constant in absence of torques. Therefore it will have to be constant in the external reference frame, but the moment of inertia tensor (I) is non-constant in this frame because of the lack of symmetry. Therefore the spin angular velocity vector (ωs) about the spin axis will have to evolve in time so that the matrix product L = Iωs remains constant.

But isn't the matrix product L = Iωs relative to the moving frame (that's how we did it in our course anyway), meaning L and omega are indeed the vectors as defined/seen from the absolute/fixed frame, but the matrix product has the components from the moving/relative frame. In that case, those components of L don't have to be fixed, since a fixed L in the absolute frame will seem to be rotating/changing when seen from the moving frame.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hello mr. vodka! :smile:
mr. vodka said:
But isn't the matrix product L = Iωs relative to the moving frame (that's how we did it in our course anyway), meaning L and omega are indeed the vectors as defined/seen from the absolute/fixed frame, but the matrix product has the components from the moving/relative frame. In that case, those components of L don't have to be fixed, since a fixed L in the absolute frame will seem to be rotating/changing when seen from the moving frame.

the angular momentum (I) is best defined in the moving frame (the frame fixed in the body and rotating with it) because it's fixed in the structure, and in a stationary frame it would be changing

but you can define the angular momentum in the stationary frame, which is what wikipedia is doing to make it clear that a constant Iω and a changing I means a changing ω

we can work in either frame …

if all we want to show is that ω must be changing, then the stationary frame is easiest, but if we want to actually find the equation for ω, it's best to use the moving frame and Euler's equations :wink:
 
Aha, that makes a lot of sense, thank you! :)
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Precession - why does the rotational axis change as L changes?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Torque-Free Precession and Wobble direction
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Precession of a gyroscope in freefall
Replies
10
Views
3K
Euler angles in torque free precession of a symmetric top
Replies
3
Views
2K
Torque, angular momentum and a fixed axis-of-symmetry requirement
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Torque required to prevent precession
Replies
2
Views
1K
I How to quantify gyroscopic precession torque?
Replies
34
Views
3K
Epicyclic motion and precession
Replies
1
Views
1K
Understanding Rigid Body Rotation: Principles and Observations
Replies
3
Views
1K
Puzzling precession of the torque-free symmetric top
Replies
13
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top