Determine position given linear and angular accelerations

AI Thread Summary
To determine the position of a body in an inertial frame using linear and angular accelerations, the discussion emphasizes the need to integrate these accelerations over time, starting from the origin. The user currently uses a basic method of integrating linear velocity but seeks a more accurate approach. They consider using the body frame's velocity and rotation data, applying the Euler (3-2-1) direct cosine matrix to convert the velocity vector to the inertial frame. This method is questioned for its validity, particularly regarding the transformation of the body velocity vector into the inertial frame. Overall, the discussion revolves around improving position calculations through better integration techniques and frame transformations.
JesseGeisbert
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I would like to know how to calculate (x,y,z) in the inertial frame at any given time, t for a body I am testing. On the body, I have one instrument that can give me (u,v,w) in the body frame, another instrument to give (roll, pitch, yaw) in the body frame, and yet another instrument that can give both linear and angular accelerations (again in the body frame).

I am sampling at 100 Hz, but I want to determine position in the inertial frame from t=0 until the end of the test spot. I am assuming at t = 0 that the body is starting from the origin (0,0,0). At each new time step (i.e. t = t0 + 0.01) I get another data packet containing the information listed above.

Currently, we do a very crude method for determining position by integrating the linear velocity vector over the time step, but I'd like to improve upon this by starting with the linear and angular acceleration vector and integrate to get position.

Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
While continuing to try to solve this problem, I was wondering instead if I should use my velocity and rotation relative to the body frame (u, v, w) and (roll, pitch, yaw) and translate the velocity frame back to the inertial frame using the Euler (3-2-1) direct cosine matrix?

Is this approach valid? If I apply the 3-2-1 direct cosine matrix, and multiple that by my velocity vector, doesn't this put my body velocity vector into the inertial frame?
 
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