I What Determines the Order of Rotations for a Gyro?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Trying2Learn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gyro Rotations
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the modeling of gyroscopic systems, specifically comparing an inertial guidance system and a standard Cardan gyroscope. It highlights the use of Tait angles for the inertial system and Euler angles for the gyroscope, emphasizing the importance of the supporting structure in determining the order of rotations. The conversation explores the implications of removing the gimbals, questioning how the stripped-down disk informs the application of rotations. It concludes that the spin of the disk must be the first rotation applied due to its role in generating angular momentum, which resists changes in orientation. The function of gimbals is to isolate the spinning disk from external moments, maintaining its spatial orientation.
Trying2Learn
Messages
375
Reaction score
57
TL;DR Summary
This could be another idiotic question (let's hedge our bets and say it is). Still, regardless of Tait or Euler angles, what is the order of applying the rotations?
This could be a whole lot of nothing... however...

Here are two figures used in gyroscopic analyses.
Guidance.PNG
Gyro.PNG


  • On the left, is a model for an inertial guidance system on an airplane. As the airplane precesses (about the vertical 3-axis), and as the disk spins about the local 2-axis, there is an induced nuation, restricted by the springs, to measure the direction of the plane.
    • To model the system on the LEFT, I use the Tait angles in order: 3-axis, 1-axis, 2-axis. I can do this, and it all works out.
  • On the right, is a standard Cardan Gyroscope
    • To model the system on the RIGHT, I use the Euler angles in order: 3-axis, 1-axis, 3-axis. I can do this, and it all works out.
So far, so good, I understand.

Now suppose I remove all the structures/gimbals that "inform" me (or guide me) in the order of rotations? Suppose I delete everythig except the disk mass itself and leave it hanging in space.

What, in these stripped-down problems "informs" me of the order in which I apply the rotations?
Or, is the supporting structure itself, the thing that informs me? (I think this is true)

Thus, for the one on the RIGHT, why could I not model it in THIS order?
(It is still a 3, 1 3 Euler angle family)
  1. Spin of disk about 3-axis
  2. Nutation of disk about 1-axis
  3. Precession of disk about the local 3-axis

If I analyzed this in the order I just wrote, then, after the nutation, there is no remaining vertical axis about which to "precess" (so maybe that is the issue)

If I do it "correctly" and precessed, then nutated, there does remain the body disk axis about which to spin.

What is it about the stripped down disk, that in both figures, the SPIN is to the LAST of the rotations applied?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The spinning of a body at high angular velocity is the source of any precession; therefore, it must be first.
That fast spinning of a mass induces an angular momentum vector, which resists any change to its spatial orientation.

If an external moment applied on the spinning body forces a modification of that spatial orientation, a reactive moment appears and an additional rotation in a different direction is induced by that external moment.

The function of the gimbals shown in the second picture Is to isolate the spinning (at high rpm's) disc from any external moment, so it remains rotating in the same exact spatial orientation.

Please, see:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rotv2.html#rvec4
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top