Codex @codex  0

Variation in the inclination of a rotating body's axis, distinguished from its azimuthal precession. For a heavy symmetric top, the cyclic angular momenta reduce the motion to ${\dot{\mu }}^2=F(\mu )$ with $\mu =\cos \theta$ and $F$ cubic. Its admissible interval and turning points describe the nutation.

Noether theorem associates a conserved quantity ${\sum }_i{p}_i\delta q_i$ to a continuous symmetry of the Lagrangian (with the usual boundary-term correction if the Lagrangian changes by a total derivative). The angles $\psi$ and $\varphi$ are cyclic coordinates, so for the heavy symmetric topTime-translation symmetry gives conserved energy, whose Hamiltonian expression isIt is quadratic in the momenta; $p_{\theta }=I_1\dot{\theta }$. Eliminating the cyclic velocities and putting $\mu =\cos \theta$, so ${\dot{\mu }}^2={\sin }^2\theta {\dot{\theta }}^2$, yieldsThe first term has degree three and the second degree two, displaying the cubic governing nutation.

The two cyclic Euler angles give conserved canonical momentaHere $L_3$ is the body-axis angular momentum and $L_z$ the vertical angular momentum. Thus ${\omega }_3=L_3/I_3$ is constant. Since the Lagrangian has no explicit time dependence, the energy is also conserved:These are the three independent conserved quantities furnished by the continuous symmetries of the heavy symmetric top.

Solving the two momentum equations givesSubstitution into the conserved energy reduces the heavy symmetric top to one-dimensional effective potential motion:whereThis is the heavy symmetric top reduction.

Model the assembly as a heavy symmetric top with a fixed frictionless support, a uniform gravitational field, and centre of mass on its symmetry axis. Assume constant spin, negligible damping, and initial conditions prepared for uniform precession of a heavy symmetric top. Large spin means the transverse angular momentum from precession is small: $I_1|\Omega |\sin \theta \ll |I_3{\omega }_3|$. Also require $|\Omega |\ll |{\omega }_3|$. A large spin rate alone does not select steady motion after an arbitrary release.

For an original illustrative calculation, stipulateThe transverse principal moments of inertia $I_1,I_2$ are about the pivot, including the parallel axis theorem contribution. These inputs giveThe ratio ${\Omega }_0/{\omega }_3=0.00368$ is small; the more direct angular momentum ratio $I_1{\Omega }_0\sin 60^{\circ }/L_s=0.00358$ is small too. These are model calculations, not experimental results.

Check the approximation against the existing exact uniform precession of a heavy symmetric top condition. Its total angular momentum isAt constant $\theta ,\Omega ,L_s$, differentiating this expression and equating it to the gravitational torque givesFor $L_s>0$ the slow solution can be evaluated without subtracting two nearly equal numbers:It exceeds ${\Omega }_0$ by about $0.208\%$. The other solution is about $177.409rad/s$ and violates the assumed slow precession; the quadratic's two roots must not be conflated. Its discriminant must be nonnegative for these steady solutions to exist.

The original curves hold $I_1,I_3,\theta$ fixed and vary spin and the imposed torque coefficient $K$ in ${\mathbf{\tau }}_O=K\hat{\mathbf{z}}\times \hat{\mathbf{e}}$. For gravity alone, $K=Mgd$; the other curves are hypothetical changes in the transverse torque, not observations of this wheel. Solid curves use the slow quadratic root; dashed curves use $K/(I_3{\omega }_3)$. The second panel displays their relative difference. Increasing spin improves this approximation for the parameters shown. It does not remove nutation caused by inappropriate initial conditions.

Purdue's Bicycle Wheel Gyroscope demonstration uses a bicycle wheel on a long axle, with a ball at one end seated in a freely rotating socket on a heavy stand. Spin the wheel by hand or with the supplied motor, seat the ball, and release the nearly horizontal axle. The readout is the axle sweeping around the vertical while the wheel continues spinning. Compare with the stopped wheel, which falls when one end is released; reverse the spin with the same support and the precession reverses. These are the page's documented apparatus, presentation, and reversal checks. ^[ref]

An alternative in Physics Demonstrations by Julien Clinton Sprott (section 1.3, Materials and Procedure) suspends one axle end by stainless steel wire and a fishing-line swivel. The swivel allows precession without winding up the suspension. Sprott describes the axle bobbing as nutation and precession becoming faster as spin decreases. A suspended support can move, whereas the calculation here assumes a fixed $O$; use the socket version for the closest realization. ^[ref]

A proposed quantitative extension is to record an overhead view of an axle marker against a fixed angle scale, together with a side view for $\theta (t)$. Time successive overhead passages to estimate $\Omega =2\pi /T$; count passages of a rim mark to estimate $|{\omega }_3|=2\pi f$. Record the spin sense too. Measure $M$ and the centre of mass offset $d$ of the whole moving assembly, and determine its axial moment of inertia $I_3$ independently. Wheel, axle, support, release angle, and observation interval should stay the same between spin trials. Measuring both $\Omega$ and $\theta (t)$ distinguishes azimuthal precession from nutation; an overhead movie alone can miss the latter. These camera readouts and parameter checks are proposed here, not reported measurements from the demonstration pages.

For slow precession, compare $\Omega I_3{\omega }_3$ with $Mgd$, and test whether reversing ${\omega }_3$ reverses $\Omega$ with nearly unchanged magnitude. A brief interval minimizes spin loss from friction; repeat at several starting spin rates rather than interpreting an entire slowing run as one steady state. A suspension restoring torque governed by its torsion constant, socket friction, support motion, a misplaced centre of mass, and a push at release can all supply extra torque or change the initial conditions. The swivel reduces the twist that activates the suspension's torsion constant; it does not demonstrate zero torque.

Steady precession keeps $\theta$ constant; nutation changes $\theta$ while the axle may also precess. Sudden release generally excites both. A small initial drop is consistent with conservation of energy and conserved vertical angular momentum: some gravitational potential energy supplies the motion around the vertical, and the axial contribution to vertical angular momentum adjusts. Bearing friction may damp the bobbing, but an ideal undamped heavy symmetric top need not settle into steady precession. Chapter 20: Rotation in space explicitly distinguishes uniform precession from release transients and nutation (section 20-3, paragraphs following equation 20.15).^[ref]

A heavy symmetric top precesses uniformly when its inclination is constant and its azimuthal speed is constant. For a nonvertical inclination, the condition is $I_1\cos \theta {\Omega }^2-I_3{\omega }_3\Omega +Mgl=0$. The real-root condition depends on whether the body axis points above or below the horizontal.