A Corresponding case of steady precession but for Tait-Bryan angles

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differences between Euler angles and Tait-Bryan angles in the context of rotational motion. While Euler angles can describe a special case of steady precession, Tait-Bryan angles do not exhibit a corresponding phenomenon due to their application in modeling planes and ships, which do not experience the same precessional behavior as gyroscopes. The consensus is that the choice of angles should be based on the specific problem being addressed, acknowledging that steady precession is relevant only in certain mechanical contexts. It is recognized that seeking parallels between the two systems may not be necessary or productive. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate modeling in various fields.
Trying2Learn
Messages
375
Reaction score
57
TL;DR Summary
What is the corresponding case of steady precession but for Tait-Bryan angles
(This has continued to bother me. I tried asking, and no response. May I please try again?)

Using Euler angles, we rotate about an axis (often, axis three of a gyroscope frame), then a second (axis one of the gimbal frame), then return to the same axis as the first one (back to axis 3, but of the rotor frame) (all in the moving body frame): Precession, then Nutation, then Spin.

Using Tait Bryan angles, we go through a simliar process but this time, all three axes are different: Yaw, pitch, roll?

For Euler angles, there emerges a special case of Steady Precession:
  1. Precession RATE constant
  2. Nutation constant
  3. Spin RATE constant

What is the corresponding phenomena for the Tait-Bryan angles?
Or is that a non-sensical question? And why?

Sometimes, I think the case of steady precession is only for mechanical devices, and can best be described using Euler angles (precession, nutation, spin); and that there is NO SUCH corresponding phenomena when modeling a ship or plane using Tait Bryan (pitch, yaw, roll).

I think I am being a bit OCD trying to draw a parallel. I think I should accept the fact that one just choose the most suitable angles for the problem at hand, and just note that there is a special case of steady precssion for Euler angles (gyroscopes) and not for Tait-Bryan (planes and ships)

Thus, is it ridiculous to even ask about a special case when using Tait Angles (as we do with Euler angles)?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


Your understanding is correct, there is no corresponding phenomena for Tait-Bryan angles. This is because Tait-Bryan angles are commonly used to describe the orientation of planes and ships, which do not exhibit the same type of precession as a gyroscope. The concept of steady precession only applies to rotational motion, and planes and ships do not typically experience this type of motion. Therefore, it is not necessary to try and draw a parallel between the two coordinate systems. As you mentioned, the choice of which angles to use depends on the problem at hand, and in this case, Tait-Bryan angles are more suitable for describing the orientation of planes and ships. It is not ridiculous to ask the question, but it is important to understand the limitations and differences between the two coordinate systems.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top