Screw theory and Chasles' theorem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Liferider
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Screw Theorem Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around screw theory and Chasles' theorem, particularly in the context of rigid body motion. Participants explore the implications of the theorem and its application to complex motions, such as a falling and rotating body.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses skepticism about Chasles' theorem, questioning how a falling and rotating body can be represented in screw terms.
  • Another participant suggests that the translational displacement could be along the z-axis, but acknowledges that this does not always align with the rotation axis.
  • Questions are raised about whether the line through the object must lie on the axis of translation and rotation, or if it can lie outside the object relative to an inertial frame.
  • Participants inquire about the necessary coordinate systems to understand twists, wrenches, and screws.
  • One participant shares links to external resources, indicating they found them fascinating and helpful for understanding the topic.
  • Another participant concludes that the example can be described with a rotation around an axis parallel to the ground, noting that the location of the rotation axis changes as the object accelerates in free fall.
  • A later reply acknowledges the existence of two versions of the theorem (infinitesimal and configuration-to-configuration), suggesting that this realization makes the theorem seem more obvious.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application of Chasles' theorem to specific motions, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the questions raised.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions about the axes of translation and rotation, as well as the definitions of twists, wrenches, and screws in different coordinate systems.

Liferider
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
I am currently working on my masters and happened to stumble upon screw theory, of which I have no previous experience with. Fundemental to screw theory is Chasles' theorem or Mozzi's theorem that states that any rigid body motion can be produced by a translation along a line and rotation about the same line, and vice versa. However, I find this hard to believe. Consider a body falling towards the ground while also rotating about an axis parallel to the ground and passing through the objects center of mass. How is it possible to represent this motion in screw-terms?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe I am thinking of the translational displacement as along, say z-axis towards the ground and then expect the rotation to be around this axis (for Chasles' theorem to be corrrect), and of course that is not always the case... But, is there some other line that can represent the translation, where the rotation axis can also be placed?
 
Question 1:
Does a line through the object have to lie on the axis of translation and rotation? Or can the trans./rot. axis lie outside the object (relative to an inertial frame)?

Question 2:
Which coordinate systems do I have to consider in order to understand the notions of twists, wrenches and screws?
 
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/16741-s07/www/lecture4.pdf

Try this. I found it fascinating.
 
Philip Wood said:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/academic/class/16741-s07/www/lecture4.pdf

Try this. I found it fascinating.
Thanks, I think I learned something just there. Still not quite there though, will try to explain when I truly understand and feel confident enough.
 
Your example can be described with just a rotation around an axis parallel to the ground (way out). as the object accelerates (free fall), the location of the rotation axis changes.
 
dauto said:
Your example can be described with just a rotation around an axis parallel to the ground (way out). as the object accelerates (free fall), the location of the rotation axis changes.
That was my conclusion as well, in the end.. Now that I realize that the theorem actually have two versions, the infintesimal one and the configuration-to-configuration version, the theorem seems pretty obvious to me. Following the different proofs out there comes naturally. I thank you both for explaining this to me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 456 ·
16
Replies
456
Views
26K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K