Inertia Tensor as a Transformation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between angular velocity and angular momentum in rigid bodies, expressed as Iω = L. It explores the transformation of the inertia tensor using a reference frame at the center of mass, represented as I = R I₀ Rᵀ, where I₀ is the diagonalized inertia tensor. The transformation involves rotating and scaling angular velocity components, leading to a complex interplay of transformations. The author notes significant freedom in designing the inertia tensor and rotation matrix, although a key restriction is that the inner product of angular velocity and angular momentum must remain positive. Overall, the exploration highlights the intricate nature of inertia tensor transformations in rigid body dynamics.
uliuli
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I was thinking about the relationship between angular velocity and angular momentum for a rigid body: I \omega = L. In particular, I'm trying to gain a little bit of intuition as to what transformations I can perform on \omega.

Let's use a reference frame at the center of mass of the body. We can rewrite the inertia tensor as: I = R I_0 R^T, where I_0 is the diagonalized inertia tensor and R rotates the coordinate system from a principle-axes-aligned frame to the current frame. When I now apply I to \omega, I am equivalently rotating \omega by some arbitrary rotation, scaling each component by a positive (and in general, different for each component) number, and rotating by the inverse of the first rotation. In general, what does this concatenation of transformations give me?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To reply to my own thread :):

The more I think about this, the less I think one can say about the family of transforms that I can perform. I can 'design' I_0 to be arbitrarily close to a projection onto a cartesian axis, I can make R any rotation I want... there is a lot of freedom.

About the only concrete restriction on the transform I've come up with is that \omega and L have a positive inner product: \omega^T L = \omega^T R I_0 R^T \omega = (R^T \omega)^T I_0 (R^T \omega) = \tilde{\omega}^T I_0 \tilde{\omega} > 0 due to the positive definiteness of I_0.

Ohh well!
 
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