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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Back
Top