Show me a derivation of the BKE

  • Thread starter Thread starter abercrombiems02
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of the Basic Kinematic Equation (BKE) in advanced dynamics. The BKE is defined as e d/dt(Vector) = u d/dt(Vector) + omega between e and u X (Vector), where e represents the inertial frame, u is the working frame, and omega denotes angular velocity. An additional term for linear velocity is mentioned but assumed to be zero for simplicity. The participants express interest in formal proofs and geometrical methods for deriving the BKE, with one member indicating they will share scanned notes for further clarification.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Basic Kinematic Equations (BKE)
  • Familiarity with angular velocity and cross product operations
  • Knowledge of inertial and working frames in dynamics
  • Basic principles of advanced dynamics and kinematics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research formal proofs of the Basic Kinematic Equation (BKE)
  • Explore geometrical methods for deriving kinematic equations
  • Study the implications of angular velocity in different reference frames
  • Learn about the role of linear velocity in kinematic equations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mechanical engineering, aerospace dynamics, and physics who are looking to deepen their understanding of kinematic equations and their derivations.

abercrombiems02
Messages
114
Reaction score
0
For any of you advanced dynamics people, can you please show me a derivation of the BKE. (Basic Kinematic Equation)

The BKE is...

e d/dt(Vector) = u d/dt(Vector) + omega between e and u X (Vector)

sometimes an additional term is added which is the linear velocity between the frames but for some simplicity let's assume this is zero.

e is the inertial frame
and u is the working frame

omega is the angular velocity
X is the cross product operator

I know just by looking at a simple single rotation problem, the solution is trivial but does anyone know of a formal proof?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I do, but I think it will take me a month of Sundays to write here. Let me see if I can scan in my old dynamics notes from school. Give me a bit!
 
Thanks, take your time, I'm in no rush!
 
Here we go. I had to scan it in from my Dynamics class notes. The pdf is a bit rough on the quality side. If you can't read it, let me know and I'll e-mail you the scan.
 
Last edited:
thanks a lot! This works perfectly. I actually found a more geometrical way to prove it with the few extra hours i had to spare today. Unfortunately, I don't have a scanner to show anyone to ensure correctness. Perhaps when I get back to school I can scan it in and have someone verify that my method is correct. Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K