Why can I neglect angular momentum due to precession here?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the neglect of angular momentum due to precession in a rolling coin scenario. It is argued that the precessing object's angular momentum has a vertical contribution, but this contribution rotates and does not align with the principal axes, complicating the assumption of constant angular momentum. The participants explore the relationship between angular velocity and the tilt of the coin, noting that the precession axis is vertical, yet the angular momentum may not be. The conversation highlights the complexities of angular momentum in non-vertical rotations and the implications for understanding motion dynamics. Overall, the nuances of precession and angular momentum are critical to accurately analyzing the system's behavior.
infinite_sodium
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
A coin of radius $b$ and mass $M$ rolls on a horizontal surface at speed $V$. If the plane of the coin is vertical the coin rolls in a straight line. If the plane is tilted, the path of the coin is a circle of radius $R$ . Find and expression for the tilt angle of the coin $\alpha$ in terms of the given quantities. (Because of the tilt of the coin the circle traced by its center of mass is slightly smaller than $R$ but you can ignore the difference)
Relevant Equations
$\mathbf{R} = R\mathbf{r} + b\sin \alpha \mathbf{z}$
$R\dot \theta = b\omega_s$
$\mathbf{\omega} = \omega_r \mathbf{r} + \omega_z \mathbf{z}$
$\mathbf{\omega} = (\omega_s \cos \alpha)\mathbf{\hat r} + (\omega_s \sin \alpha + \dot \theta)\mathbf{\hat z}$,
Because the object precesses, it has a vertical contribution to its angular momentum, whom their contributions to the angular momentum isn't vertical but rather rotates (thus needing the torque to do so), because it doesn't align with the principal axes. Thus why can I assume these are constant? The moment of inertia about the axis of 'spin' and the perpendicular axis are clearly not equal, and it seems unlikely that the contribution from precession somehow manages to be vertical. Image: (left is the rolling coin) https://i.sstatic.net/Y094CRx7.png

Use a cylindrical coordinate system with the origin at the bottom.
By using coordinate transformations and the fact that the moments of inertia about the main symmetry axis and the 'side' principal axis is $$\frac{1}{2} Mb^2$$ and $$\frac{1}{4} Mb^2$$ respectively, we have, denoting ,
$$\mathbf{L} = \mathbf {R} \times M\mathbf {\dot R} + \frac{Mb^2}{2}(\omega_r \cos \alpha + \omega_z \sin \alpha)(\cos \alpha \mathbf{r} + \sin \alpha \mathbf {z}) + \frac{Mb^2}{4}(-\omega_r \sin \alpha + \omega_z \cos \alpha)(-\sin \alpha \mathbf{r} + \cos \alpha \mathbf{z}) $$
which simplifies to
$$\mathbf{L} = -MbR\dot \theta \cos \alpha \mathbf {r} + \frac{1}{4} Mb^2 (2\omega_r \cos^2 \alpha + \omega_r \sin^2 \alpha + \omega_z \sin \alpha \cos \alpha)\mathbf{r} + k\mathbf{z}$$
(where $k\mathbf{z}$ contains the constant z-components who play no dynamical role). Thus $$\mathbf{\dot L} = -MbR \dot \theta ^ 2 \cos \alpha \mathbf{\hat \theta} + \frac{1}{4}Mb^2 \dot \theta (2\omega_r \cos^2 \alpha + \omega_r \sin^2 \alpha + \omega_z \sin \alpha \cos \alpha) \mathbf {\hat \theta}$$
Substituting $$\mathbf{\omega} = (\omega_s \cos \alpha)\mathbf{\hat r} + (\omega_s \sin \alpha + \dot \theta)\mathbf{\hat z}$$, we have,
$$\mathbf{\dot L} = [\frac{-3}{2} MRb \dot \theta^2 \cos \alpha - \frac{1}{4} \dot \theta^2 \sin \alpha \cos \alpha] \mathbf {\hat \theta}$$

The torque about the origin is $$\mathbf {\tau} = mgR\mathbf{\hat \theta} - mg(R + b\sin \alpha)\mathbf{\hat \theta} = -mgb\sin \alpha \mathbf{\hat \theta}$$. Thus
$$\frac{3}{2} R\dot \theta ^ 2 \cos \alpha + \frac{1}{4} b \dot \theta^2 \sin \alpha \cos \alpha = g\sin \alpha$$

Now, the solution from the back of the book states $$\tan{\alpha}=\frac{3V^2}{2Rg}=\frac{3R\dot\theta^2}{2g}$$. What went wrong? [Note: this can be obtained by simply neglecting the term ##\dot \theta## in my angular velocity equation.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome!
I believe that you can neglect angular momentum due to precession here because the coin is rolling in balance of forces and moments.
 
Can you elaborate? The principal axes are tilted to even if the angular velocity due to precession is constant, the angular momentum is not.
 
I've stayed out of this thread because I have trouble deciphering the meaning of some parts…
infinite_sodium said:
Because the object precesses, it has a vertical contribution to its angular momentum, whom their contributions
whom? their? I have no idea what is meant by that.
infinite_sodium said:
it seems unlikely that the contribution from precession somehow manages to be vertical
I do not see how the precession axis can be other than vertical. If you compare the state of the disc at one time with that at another, there is a horizontal displacement and a rotation about a vertical axis. If the rotation were about a non-vertical axis then the angle of the plane of disc to the vertical will change.
 
Sorry I'll clarify:
"Because the object precesses, it has a vertical contribution to its angular velocity [oops]. For that contribution to the angular velocity, the angular momentum due to it isn't vertical but rather rotates (thus needing the torque to do so), because it doesn't align with the principal axes." Recall that L is not necessarily parallel to w.

"and it seems unlikely that the contribution to the angular momentum from precession somehow manages to be vertical"
The precession axis is vertical, I do agree. However I do not see why the angular momentum due to it is vertical as well, given that there is a finite tilt. (Even if we do approximate, the contribution to angular momentum isn't zero to first order)
 
infinite_sodium said:
Sorry I'll clarify:
"Because the object precesses, it has a vertical contribution to its angular velocity [oops]. For that contribution to the angular velocity, the angular momentum due to it isn't vertical but rather rotates (thus needing the torque to do so), because it doesn't align with the principal axes." Recall that L is not necessarily parallel to w.

"and it seems unlikely that the contribution to the angular momentum from precession somehow manages to be vertical"
The precession axis is vertical, I do agree. However I do not see why the angular momentum due to it is vertical as well, given that there is a finite tilt. (Even if we do approximate, the contribution to angular momentum isn't zero to first order)
Thanks for the clarification.
 
Let ##\alpha## be an angle between coin's plane and the floor. The radius of the coin is ##r##.
Introduce a moving coordinate frame ##Sxyz## such that ##S## is the coin's centre;
the coin belongs to the plane ##xz## and the axis ##x## is horizontal.
Then an angular velocity of the coin relative the frame ##Sxyz## is ##\nu\boldsymbol e_y##;
an angular velocity of the frame is
##\Omega(\cos\alpha \boldsymbol e_y+\sin\alpha\boldsymbol e_z)##.
One then has
##\frac{3}{2}r\Omega\nu\sin\alpha+\frac{5}{8}r\Omega^2\sin 2\alpha+g\cos\alpha=0;##
##\boldsymbol v_S=r(\Omega\cos\alpha+\nu)\boldsymbol e_x;##
##\boldsymbol a_S=r\Omega(\Omega\cos\alpha+\nu)(-\cos\alpha \boldsymbol e_z+\sin\alpha \boldsymbol e_y).##
If ##R## is a radius of the circle which the point ##S## describes then
##R=-r\Big(\cos\alpha+\frac{\nu}{\Omega}\Big)##

Untitled.webp
 
Last edited:
From the formulas above we can deduce the following remark.
Assume that ##R=0## then
$$|\Omega|\sim 2\sqrt{\frac{g}{r\alpha}}\to\infty,\quad\alpha\to 0.$$
This explains the Euler disk
 
infinite_sodium said:
Can you elaborate? The principal axes are tilted to even if the angular velocity due to precession is constant, the angular momentum is not.
Could you explain that idea a little more for me?
How would you define precession in this case?
 
Back
Top