Gyroscope precession derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the derivation of gyroscope precession, focusing on the application of torque when a small force is applied to a rotating body. The user understands the initial concepts of angular momentum and torque but struggles with the transition to the equation J(dot) = I(3)w(dot) = r x F. They express confusion over ignoring angular momentum components normal to the axis when a small angular velocity component is introduced. The user also mentions a lack of clarity in their source notes regarding the inertia tensor. Ultimately, they seek clarification on this specific step in the derivation process.
bman!!
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
alrite I am new on this forum...just discovered it...pretty awesome

ok, I am looking over notes from a classical physics course i did, and I've just covered rigid bodies, and literally just got through the inertia tensor, principal axes and all that good stuff.

theres a step in the gyroscope precession, that is mathematically very simple, but I am just having a brain fart and it completely eludes me:

body is roating about a principle axis such that w (rotation vector) is equal to we(3) where e(3) is the principle axes of the body vector (presumably the vector that is perpendicular to the face of the spinning disk)

this means ang mom J=I(3)we(3) where I(3) is the corresponding moment of inertia.

thus the differential of this quantity to get the torque is therefore = 0 as w is constant.

i understand this...but then

small force F is applied somewhere along this axis at r, this force is perpendicular to w. the body then acquires small component of angular v perpendicular to its axis, new equation of motion, the torque ;J(dot) = r x F.

i also understand this bit, but then this next simple step completely throws me;

if the force is small, the new angular velocity component will be small compared to the angular velocity of the orignal rotation,we can then ignore angular momentum components normal to the axis and therefore write

J(dot) = I(3)w(dot) = r x F

i just do not understand this bit.

if the notation comfuses I've attached the source notes from where I am revising. the section is on pages 17-18, the notes are good, but i have to say the inertai tensor bit was somewhat lacking in explanation for my taste.

i realize forum etiquette requires i look at old posts and all that, but this quite specific question about a step in a derviation that i simply do not get.

any help appreciated.

cheers
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
id also like to add, i didnt think this was quite homework and coursework, so i posted it here, cos it was difficulty in conceptualising rather than raw calculation difficulty
 
uhhhh brain fart, i think i just got it...

i feel like a retard.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top