Skip to main content
added 4 characters in body
Source Link
Anu3082
  • 182
  • 8

Edit 1: May be I should modify my question after getting the answers. I see why $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ are legitimate Dof's of the dumb-bell, I never had any problem with that.

Please consider now any rigid body in general. It has $6$ Dof's, two examples of which are mentioned below:

  • $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are CoM co-ordinates, and $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are the Eulerian angles (or, the pitch, roll and the yaw) of the rigid body.

  • Take a line through any point $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ inside the rigid body, fix a line through the point using two angles $\theta, \phi$ (or fix a unit vector along the line, using two components). The last $Dof$ is obtained by specifying an angle around this line as axis, $\theta'$ that a point not on this line makes with, say the horizontal.

My question is more about the constraint relations. There are $3N$ co-ordinates to begin with, and each constraint relation eliminates one redundant co-ordinate. If this is true, because a rigid body has $6$ Dof's, after considering all the constraint relations (minus all the redundant constraints), I will have only $6$ (out of the set of $3N$ co-ordinates to start with). So can I have the Dof's to be anyany $6$ co-ordinates out of the initial $3N$, for example $(x_1, y_2, z_3, x_4, x_5, z_6)$ - is that sufficient to locate the rigid body?

If not, the constraint relations only lowers the number of co-ordinates, doesn't eliminate (remove) though. The reduced set of co-ordinates doesn't have to be any of those before reduction, it could be any, just one less in number.

Edit 1: May be I should modify my question after getting the answers. I see why $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ are legitimate Dof's of the dumb-bell, I never had any problem with that.

Please consider now any rigid body in general. It has $6$ Dof's, two examples of which are mentioned below:

  • $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are CoM co-ordinates, and $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are the Eulerian angles (or, the pitch, roll and the yaw) of the rigid body.

  • Take a line through any point $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ inside the rigid body, fix a line through the point using two angles $\theta, \phi$ (or fix a unit vector along the line, using two components). The last $Dof$ is obtained by specifying an angle around this line as axis, $\theta'$ that a point not on this line makes with, say the horizontal.

My question is more about the constraint relations. There are $3N$ co-ordinates to begin with, and each constraint relation eliminates one redundant co-ordinate. If this is true, because a rigid body has $6$ Dof's, after considering all the constraint relations (minus all the redundant constraints), I will have only $6$ (out of the set of $3N$ co-ordinates to start with). So can I have the Dof's to be any $6$ co-ordinates out of the initial $3N$, for example $(x_1, y_2, z_3, x_4, x_5, z_6)$ - is that sufficient to locate the rigid body?

If not, the constraint relations only lowers the number of co-ordinates, doesn't eliminate (remove) though. The reduced set of co-ordinates doesn't have to be any of those before reduction, it could be any, just one less in number.

Edit 1: May be I should modify my question after getting the answers. I see why $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ are legitimate Dof's of the dumb-bell, I never had any problem with that.

Please consider now any rigid body in general. It has $6$ Dof's, two examples of which are mentioned below:

  • $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are CoM co-ordinates, and $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are the Eulerian angles (or, the pitch, roll and the yaw) of the rigid body.

  • Take a line through any point $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ inside the rigid body, fix a line through the point using two angles $\theta, \phi$ (or fix a unit vector along the line, using two components). The last $Dof$ is obtained by specifying an angle around this line as axis, $\theta'$ that a point not on this line makes with, say the horizontal.

My question is more about the constraint relations. There are $3N$ co-ordinates to begin with, and each constraint relation eliminates one redundant co-ordinate. If this is true, because a rigid body has $6$ Dof's, after considering all the constraint relations (minus all the redundant constraints), I will have only $6$ (out of the set of $3N$ co-ordinates to start with). So can I have the Dof's to be any $6$ co-ordinates out of the initial $3N$, for example $(x_1, y_2, z_3, x_4, x_5, z_6)$ - is that sufficient to locate the rigid body?

If not, the constraint relations only lowers the number of co-ordinates, doesn't eliminate (remove) though. The reduced set of co-ordinates doesn't have to be any of those before reduction, it could be any, just one less in number.

Added a few words
Source Link
Anu3082
  • 182
  • 8

Edit 1: May be I should modify my question after getting the answers. I see why $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ are legitimate Dof's of the dumb-bell, I never had any problem with that.

Please consider now any rigid body in general. It has $6$ Dof's, two examples of which are mentioned below:

  • $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are CoM co-ordinates, and $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are the Eulerian angles (or, the pitch, roll and the yaw) of the rigid body.

  • Take a line through any point $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ inside the rigid body, fix a line through the point using two angles $\theta, \phi$ (or fix a unit vector along the line, using two components). The last $Dof$ is obtained by specifying an angle around this line as axis, $\theta'$ that a point not on this line makes with, say the horizontal.

My question is more about the constraint relations. There are $3N$ co-ordinates to begin with, and each constraint relation eliminates one redundant co-ordinate. If this is true, because a rigid body has $6$ Dof's, after considering all the constraint relations (minus all the redundant constraints), I will have only $6$ (out of the set of $3N$ co-ordinates to start with). So can I have the DofSo can I have the Dof's to be any's to be $6$ anyco-ordinates out of the initial $6$ co-ordinates out of the initial $3N$, for example for example $(x_1, y_2, z_3, x_4, x_5, z_6)$ - is that sufficient to locate the rigid body- is that sufficient to locate the rigid body?

If not, the constraint relations only lowers the number of co-ordinates, doesn't eliminate (remove) though. The reduced set of co-ordinates doesn't have to be any of those before reduction, it could be any, just one less in number.

Edit 1: May be I should modify my question after getting the answers. I see why $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ are legitimate Dof's of the dumb-bell, I never had any problem with that.

Please consider now any rigid body in general. It has $6$ Dof's, two examples of which are mentioned below:

  • $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are CoM co-ordinates, and $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are the Eulerian angles (or, the pitch, roll and the yaw) of the rigid body.

  • Take a line through any point $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ inside the rigid body, fix a line through the point using two angles $\theta, \phi$ (or fix a unit vector along the line, using two components). The last $Dof$ is obtained by specifying an angle $\theta'$ that a point not on this line makes with, say the horizontal.

My question is more about the constraint relations. There are $3N$ co-ordinates to begin with, and each constraint relation eliminates one redundant co-ordinate. If this is true, because a rigid body has $6$ Dof's, after considering all the constraint relations (minus all the redundant constraints), I will have only $6$ (out of the set of $3N$ co-ordinates to start with). So can I have the Dof's to be any $6$ co-ordinates out of the initial $3N$, for example $(x_1, y_2, z_3, x_4, x_5, z_6)$ - is that sufficient to locate the rigid body?

If not, the constraint relations only lowers the number of co-ordinates, doesn't eliminate (remove) though. The reduced set of co-ordinates doesn't have to be any of those before reduction, it could be any, just one less in number.

Edit 1: May be I should modify my question after getting the answers. I see why $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ are legitimate Dof's of the dumb-bell, I never had any problem with that.

Please consider now any rigid body in general. It has $6$ Dof's, two examples of which are mentioned below:

  • $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are CoM co-ordinates, and $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are the Eulerian angles (or, the pitch, roll and the yaw) of the rigid body.

  • Take a line through any point $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ inside the rigid body, fix a line through the point using two angles $\theta, \phi$ (or fix a unit vector along the line, using two components). The last $Dof$ is obtained by specifying an angle around this line as axis, $\theta'$ that a point not on this line makes with, say the horizontal.

My question is more about the constraint relations. There are $3N$ co-ordinates to begin with, and each constraint relation eliminates one redundant co-ordinate. If this is true, because a rigid body has $6$ Dof's, after considering all the constraint relations (minus all the redundant constraints), I will have only $6$ (out of the set of $3N$ co-ordinates to start with). So can I have the Dof's to be any $6$ co-ordinates out of the initial $3N$, for example $(x_1, y_2, z_3, x_4, x_5, z_6)$ - is that sufficient to locate the rigid body?

If not, the constraint relations only lowers the number of co-ordinates, doesn't eliminate (remove) though. The reduced set of co-ordinates doesn't have to be any of those before reduction, it could be any, just one less in number.

Edited my question
Source Link
Anu3082
  • 182
  • 8

A dumbbellEdit 1: May be I should modify my question after getting the answers. I see why $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ are legitimate Dof's of the dumb-bell, I never had any problem with that.

The dumbbell consists of two point masses atPlease consider now $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ andany rigid body in general. It has $(x_2,y_2,z_2)$ separated by a distance$6$ $l$. The constraint equation isDof's, two examples of which are mentioned below: \begin{equation} (x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2+(z_1-z_2)^2=l^2 \end{equation}

Had there been no constraint equation, the number of degrees of freedom would have been $3N = 3 \times 2 = 6$. But now because of the constraint equation, only 5 out of the 6 coordinates are independent, the last coordinate is determined by the constraint equation.

  • $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are CoM co-ordinates, and $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are the Eulerian angles (or, the pitch, roll and the yaw) of the rigid body.

  • Take a line through any point $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ inside the rigid body, fix a line through the point using two angles $\theta, \phi$ (or fix a unit vector along the line, using two components). The last $Dof$ is obtained by specifying an angle $\theta'$ that a point not on this line makes with, say the horizontal.

$\mathbf{1}.$ But can we really know My question is more about the constraint relations. There are $3N$ co-ordinates to begin with, and each constraint relation eliminates one redundant co-ordinate. If this is true, because a rigid body has $6$th coordinate? The Dof's, after considering all the constraint equation will give two values forrelations (minus all the last coordinateredundant constraints), because thereI will be quadratic equation inhave only $6$ (out of the unknown coordinateset of $3N$ co-ordinates to start with). SupposeSo can I have the $(x_1, y_1, z_1) = (1, 2, 3)$ andDof's to be $(x_2, y_2, z_2) = (x_2, 3, 4)$ andany $l = \sqrt6$$6$ co-ordinates out of the initial $3N$, then we have two values for example $x_2 = 3, -1$. The last coordinate is not uniquely determined$(x_1, y_2, z_3, x_4, x_5, z_6)$ - so is that sufficient to locate the number of degrees really $5$rigid body?

$\mathbf{2}.$ There is a new suggestion: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ where $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are the coordinates of If not, the center-of-mass and $\theta$ andconstraint relations only $\phi$ arelowers the number of polarco-ordinates and the, doesn't eliminate azimuthal angles(remove) though. The If this is the effect of the constraint relationreduced, then it set of co-ordinates doesn't really eliminate one redundant coordinatehave to be any of those before reduction, but replaces the entire setit could be any, withjust one less coordinatein number. Am I right?

A dumbbell

The dumbbell consists of two point masses at $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ and $(x_2,y_2,z_2)$ separated by a distance $l$. The constraint equation is: \begin{equation} (x_1-x_2)^2+(y_1-y_2)^2+(z_1-z_2)^2=l^2 \end{equation}

Had there been no constraint equation, the number of degrees of freedom would have been $3N = 3 \times 2 = 6$. But now because of the constraint equation, only 5 out of the 6 coordinates are independent, the last coordinate is determined by the constraint equation.

$\mathbf{1}.$ But can we really know the $6$th coordinate? The constraint equation will give two values for the last coordinate, because there will be quadratic equation in the unknown coordinate. Suppose $(x_1, y_1, z_1) = (1, 2, 3)$ and $(x_2, y_2, z_2) = (x_2, 3, 4)$ and $l = \sqrt6$, then we have two values for $x_2 = 3, -1$. The last coordinate is not uniquely determined - so is the number of degrees really $5$?

$\mathbf{2}.$ There is a new suggestion: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ where $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are the coordinates of the center-of-mass and $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the polar and the azimuthal angles. If this is the effect of the constraint relation, then it doesn't really eliminate one redundant coordinate, but replaces the entire set, with one less coordinate. Am I right?

Edit 1: May be I should modify my question after getting the answers. I see why $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \theta, \phi)$ are legitimate Dof's of the dumb-bell, I never had any problem with that.

Please consider now any rigid body in general. It has $6$ Dof's, two examples of which are mentioned below:

  • $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c, \alpha, \beta, \gamma)$: $(X_c, Y_c, Z_c)$ are CoM co-ordinates, and $(\alpha, \beta, \gamma)$ are the Eulerian angles (or, the pitch, roll and the yaw) of the rigid body.

  • Take a line through any point $(x_1, y_1, z_1)$ inside the rigid body, fix a line through the point using two angles $\theta, \phi$ (or fix a unit vector along the line, using two components). The last $Dof$ is obtained by specifying an angle $\theta'$ that a point not on this line makes with, say the horizontal.

My question is more about the constraint relations. There are $3N$ co-ordinates to begin with, and each constraint relation eliminates one redundant co-ordinate. If this is true, because a rigid body has $6$ Dof's, after considering all the constraint relations (minus all the redundant constraints), I will have only $6$ (out of the set of $3N$ co-ordinates to start with). So can I have the Dof's to be any $6$ co-ordinates out of the initial $3N$, for example $(x_1, y_2, z_3, x_4, x_5, z_6)$ - is that sufficient to locate the rigid body?

If not, the constraint relations only lowers the number of co-ordinates, doesn't eliminate (remove) though. The reduced set of co-ordinates doesn't have to be any of those before reduction, it could be any, just one less in number.

edited tags
Link
Anu3082
  • 182
  • 8
Loading
Source Link
Anu3082
  • 182
  • 8
Loading