Euler equations in rigid body: Taylor VS Kleppner - Kolenkow

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the physical meaning of Euler equations as presented in Kleppner-Kolenkow and Taylor's texts. Kleppner-Kolenkow describes the equations in the context of an inertial frame, while Taylor explains them from the perspective of a rotating body frame. This discrepancy leads to uncertainty about whether both explanations are valid or if one is incorrect. Participants suggest that the Euler equations are indeed formulated in a non-inertial frame, which may indicate a lack of clarity in Kleppner-Kolenkow's presentation. Further exploration of the relationship between inertial and non-inertial frames is recommended for better understanding.
almarpa
Messages
94
Reaction score
3
Hello all.

After reading both chapters on rigid body motion both in Kleppner - Kolenkow and Taylor books, I still do not undertand the physical meaning of Euler equations. Let me explain:

In Kleppner - Kolenkow, they claim (page 321 - 322) that in Euler equations, Γ1, Γ2 and Γ3 are the components of the torque as viewed in the inertial (space) frame at some time t, ω1, ω2, ω3 are the components of angular velocity in that same frame, and dω1/dt, dω2/dt, dω3/dt the instantaneous rate of change of those components. Thus, Euler equations relate all these quantities in the inertial space frame at time t.

On the other hand, in page 396, Taylor says that the Euler equations determine the motion of a spinning body as seen in a frame fixed in the body (so I guess he means, as seen in the body frame). So Γ1, Γ2 and Γ3, and ω1, ω2, ω3, are the componnetes of torque and angular velocity in the rotating body frame.

As you see, I am really confused. Besides, to derive Euler equations, Kleppner - Kolenkow use a vector approach and the small angle approximation, while Taylor uses a relation between inertial and non inertial frames, which I have nor studied yet, and maybe this is the source of my confusion.

Are they the same statement, but explained in diffrents ways? If so, I do not understand it.

Is any of the explanations wrong? If so, which is the correct one?

Thanks a lot for your help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi
I'm not sure, but i guess they mean the inertial frame of referece. If they meant frame of the body, ω would be zero as well as ∝. But you should wait for an answer of someone more experienced :)
 
The Euler equations are in the non-inertial frame comoving with the top (body frame).
 
Thanks for your reply. That is what I thought, too.

Then, there must be a mistake in Kleppner - Kolenkow's book (or, at least, they do not explain it properly, because that is what I understood after reading that section).
 
Unfortunately my manuscript on mechanics is in German. There I worked out the relations between the body and inertial frame in detail. Perhaps you can understand it, because there are many formulae:

http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/faq/mech/node73.html

or in pdf

http://theory.gsi.de/~vanhees/faq-pdf/mech.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
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