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 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top