Timeline for Kinematics of Euler angles relative to a rotating frame
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 5, 2015 at 10:16 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Jul 5, 2015 at 10:16 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 30, 2015 at 20:34 | answer | added | honeste_vivere | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 17:55 | comment | added | honeste_vivere | I assume you have seen the wiki discussion here? This explains how to construct an orthogonal matrix from a rotation by a unit quaternion. | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 17:54 | comment | added | honeste_vivere | Are you trying to determine coordinate transforms for a rotating spacecraft with an onboard instrument that can rotate independently of the spacecraft bus? Or are you worried about something anchored to Earth's surface? | |
| Jun 28, 2015 at 0:15 | comment | added | Helder Velez | IMO the Earth is not a good referential irt this experiment. I remember the Foucault pendulum. Lets imagine a background at rest. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 19:07 | comment | added | Itay Perl | @honeste_vivere, quaternions are just easier to work with sometimes (e.g. multiplying quaternions to combine orientations). The axes of rotation of B and F are arbitrary and not constant. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 19:07 | comment | added | Itay Perl | @HelderVelez, the orientations are described relative to a universal "earth" frame. The angular velocities $\omega_B, \omega_F$ are measured in frames $B$ and $F$ respectively, i.e assume they are measured by two gyros, one rotating with B and one with F. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 13:37 | comment | added | honeste_vivere | What is your coordinate basis? About which axis (in that basis) are each rotating? If this is rigid body rotation and the coordinate basis is orthonormal, do you need to go to quaternions? I know those prevent "gimbal lock," but in most cases you need not use them because you can get away with simple Euler rotations. By the way, if you transform into the F-frame, F', then $\omega_{F}'$ = 0 and you can define your rotations there. Then go back to the rotating frame, F. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 10:44 | comment | added | Helder Velez | if both B and F are in motion then the vectors of angular velocity are irt what? . I think you need to mention an 'above all' frame at rest irt qB,qF,wB,wF are defined. | |
| Jun 27, 2015 at 9:47 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/614731691991670784 | ||
| S Jun 27, 2015 at 8:15 | history | bounty started | Itay Perl | ||
| S Jun 27, 2015 at 8:15 | history | notice added | Itay Perl | Draw attention | |
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:26 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:45 | |||||
| Jun 24, 2015 at 13:24 | history | asked | Itay Perl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |