Free-floating top; relation of precession angle and precession and spin rates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between precession rate, precession angle, and spin rate for freely spinning objects, specifically baton-like shapes in zero gravity. A formula is derived that relates these variables, indicating that for objects with an axis of symmetry, the precession is slow compared to the spin rate when the moment of inertia in the second axis is significantly greater than in the first. The analysis highlights that precession can occur even in weightless conditions, as demonstrated by a practical experiment with a spinning pen. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of precession in celestial bodies, such as Earth's precession due to gravitational forces. Overall, the findings provide a mathematical framework for understanding the dynamics of spinning objects in a frictionless environment.
hkyriazi
Messages
174
Reaction score
2
Does anyone know of a formula describing the relationship between precession rate, precession angle, and spin rate for a top (or gyroscope, or any hard, non-spherical object) spinning freely, in zero gravity? All the analyses I've been able to find are for tops under constant torque (gravity), or with their tip held in place in some way.

Specifically, I'm trying to analyze what happens to a baton-like object (like the ones that majorettes twirl in marching bands) as it goes from pure twirling (which has, by my definition, an axial spin rate of zero, and 90 deg precession angle), under a series of frictionless taps at opposite ends and sides, to the pure spinning state (zero deg precession angle, zero twirl/precession rate, and much higher spin rate than the initial twirl/precession rate).

I've had this posted for almost a full day, with no takers, so I'll add that the Earth is known to precess once every 26,000 years or so, but the explanations I've found on the web seem to attribute this to the constant force the equatorial bulge feels from the sun and other planets.

In order to prove to myself that an object can indeed precess under weightless and force-free conditions, I spun a smooth surfaced pen off my fingertips into the air (one must spin it very rapidly, with a finger-snap movement) with a slight jerk as I let it go, and could see (with a good spin and flick) that it precessed nicely until it hit the floor. (If one does this with a pencil, which is usually hexagonal in cross-section, the air resistance effect is so great that it causes very bizarre movements through the air, obscuring the precession.)

--Harold Kyriazi
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, you know what they say. Better late than never.

Objects like batons, footballs (American), some pens and most pencils have one axis of symmetry, and luckily those are the easy ones to analyze. Any solid object has three principal moments of inertia: I1, I2, and I3. For an object with an axis of symmetry, two of these are equal, say I2 = I3 = I. You can always label the principal axes so this is the case.

In the attached diagram, there is a potato shaped object representing an ellipsoid of revolution. \bold{\omega} is the total angular velocity of the potato, which is decomposed into the spin angular velocity \bold{\omega}_s and the angular velocity of precession \bold{\omega}_{pr}. The precession angular velocity is directed along the constant angular momentum vector L. Also shown are the unit vectors e1 and e2, which are the the directions of the first and second principal axes at that instant.

Since the potato is assumed to have an axis of symmetry, at any instant we can choose the second and third principal axes such that the angular momentum and angular velocity lie in the plane of the first two principal axes. Let \omega_1 and \omega_2 be the components of the total angular velocity along the 1 and 2 axes, respectively. Then the components of the angular momentum are L_1 = I_1 \omega_1 and L_2 = I_2\omega_2. Then from the diagram

L_2 = L\sin\theta = I_2\omega_2
\omega_2 = \omega_{pr}\sin \theta

from which we get

\omega_{pr} = \frac{L}{I_2}. (*)

But we also have

L_1 = L \cos \theta = I_1 \omega_1 = I_1 (\omega_s + \omega_{pr}\cos\theta). (**)

Now from (*) we get

\omega_{pr} \cos \theta= \frac{L\cos\theta}{I_2}.

and from (**) we get

L \cos \theta =I_1 (\omega_s + \omega_{pr}\cos\theta), which combined with the previous equation gives

\omega_{pr} \cos \theta = \frac{I_1 (\omega_s + \omega_{pr}\cos\theta)}{I_2}

This can be solved to get

\frac{I_2 - I_1}{I_1}\omega_{pr} \cos \theta = \omega_s, which relates the spin rate, precession rate, and precession angle.

For a baton, I2 >> I1, so the precession is slow compared to the spin rate.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Thanks, Techmologist. Better late than never to see the better-late-than-never answer, too!
 
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...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top