I Confusion about adding angular velocities

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bastian1978
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the addition of angular velocities, specifically when calculating the angular velocity of a small green disc attached to a larger orange disc. The user initially believes that adding the angular velocities A and B results in zero, indicating no change in the green disc's orientation relative to the ground. However, the user grapples with the concept that despite this zero angular velocity, the green disc is still orbiting a point on the ground. It is clarified that there are two types of angular velocity: orbital and spin, with the latter being relevant in rigid body dynamics. The conversation emphasizes understanding the distinction between these types to resolve the confusion.
Bastian1978
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I'm confused about how adding angular velocities works, in an example situation.
I'm trying to learn about adding angular velocities, and I'm confused about something. In this diagram...
https://i.sstatic.net/S6C03.png
there is a large orange disc rotating with angular velocity A (relative to the ground), and attached to the large orange disc is a small green disc, which is rotating at angular velocity B (relative to the large orange disc).
My understanding is that if I want to calculate the angular velocity of the small green disc, relative to the ground, then I would add A and B.
In the example I'm imagining, A is rotating anticlockwise at 1 radian per second, and B is rotating clockwise at 1 radian per second. So if I add A and B, I would get zero. I think that makes sense, since it'd mean that the orientation of the small green disc isn't changing relative to the ground.
The part that confuses me is that even though the orientation of the small green disc isn't changing relative to the ground (because its angular velocity relative to the ground is zero), if we imagine a point on the ground positioned at the centre of the large orange disc, the small green disc would be orbiting that point. So I don't understand how the green disc can be orbiting a point and yet have an angular velocity of zero?
I think I'm misunderstanding something fundamental about this, so if anyone could help me understand it better, that'd be great.
Also, I'd really appreciate being pointed to some reference material about this, particularly about how addition of angular velocity vectors works.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bastian1978 said:
In the example I'm imagining, A is rotating anticlockwise at 1 radian per second, and B is rotating clockwise at 1 radian per second. So if I add A and B, I would get zero. I think that makes sense, since it'd mean that the orientation of the small green disc isn't changing relative to the ground.
If fixed to an orbiting disc that is not rotating, the ground directions do not change, north is always in the same direction.

In the diagram they are both rotating anticlockwise, the sum is 2 radians/sec.
 
Bastian1978 said:
So I don't understand how the green disc can be orbiting a point and yet have an angular velocity of zero?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
Wikipedia said:
There are two types of angular velocity:
  • Orbital angular velocity refers to how fast a point object revolves about a fixed origin, i.e. the time rate of change of its angular position relative to the origin.
  • Spin angular velocity refers to how fast a rigid body rotates with respect to its center of rotation and is independent of the choice of origin, in contrast to orbital angular velocity.
 
You could also pay attention only to the relative rotation of the small green disc and the shaft that holds it.
That would remove the confusing orbit trajectory of that shaft (about which the small green disc "knows" nothing).

That shaft would be fixed or would rotate with angular velocity A relative to the ground.
Any other translational movement of the shaft would not be relevant to that green disc-shaft relative rotation.
 
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top