Codex @codex  0

Choose a fixed support point $O$ and nonrotating axes in an inertial frame. All angular momenta, torques, and moments of inertia below refer to $O$. Let $\hat{\mathbf{e}}$ point along the axle from $O$ toward the centre of mass, and let $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ point vertically upward. Write $\theta$ for their angle. For a rapidly spinning symmetric top, the dominant angular momentum is ${\mathbf{L}}_O\simeq L_s\hat{\mathbf{e}}$, where $L_s=I_3{\omega }_3$ is signed and $I_3$ is the axial principal moment of inertia. The sign of the axial angular velocity ${\omega }_3$ follows the right-hand rule.

With mass $M$, centre of mass distance $d$, and constant gravitational acceleration $g$, the gravitational force and its torque areAn ideal support applies a force at $O$, so its lever arm and torque about $O$ vanish. At the instant the axle lies in the $xz$ plane with a positive $x$ component, the gravitational torque points along $+y$. It adds $d{\mathbf{L}}_O={\mathbf{\tau }}_{O}dt$ toward $+y$, rather than along the downward force. The dot product identity $d|{\mathbf{L}}_O{|}^2/dt=2{\mathbf{L}}_O\cdot {\mathbf{\tau }}_O$ shows why perpendicular torque changes direction without instantly changing magnitude. This vector balance and the slow-turning relation ${\mathbf{\tau }}_O=\mathbf{\Omega }\times {\mathbf{L}}_O$ are developed in Chapter 20: Rotation in space (sections 20-2 and 20-3, equations 20.13–20.15).

For steady precession about the vertical, $\mathbf{\Omega }=\Omega \hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and $d\hat{\mathbf{e}}/dt=\Omega \hat{\mathbf{z}}\times \hat{\mathbf{e}}$. Equating the two cross products givesThe angular momentum tip traces a circle of radius $|L_s|\sin \theta$: its sideways speed is $|\Omega L_s|\sin \theta$. Both that radius and the gravitational lever arm contain $\sin \theta$, explaining its cancellation for $0<\theta <\pi$. Exactly vertical alignment has zero gravitational torque and no distinguishable azimuthal precession to infer by this cancellation. Positive $L_s$ gives positive precession, counterclockwise viewed from above; reversing the spin reverses the slow precession. ^[ref]

An exact planar example makes the off-diagonal entries tangible. Join four equal point masses $m$ with negligible-mass rigid connectors at $a(2,1,0)$, $a(-2,-1,0)$, $a(1,-1,0)$ and $a(-1,1,0)$, where $a>0$ is a length. Their centre of mass is $O=(0,0,0)$. Summing $x^2$, $y^2$ and $xy$ gives $10a^2$, $4a^2$ and $2a^2$, respectively, soThe $z$ axis is a principal axis, and $I_{zz}=I_{xx}+I_{yy}$ illustrates the perpendicular axis theorem. The $x$ axis is not a principal axis: angular velocity $\mathbf{\omega }=(\Omega ,0,0)$ gives angular momentum $m{a}^2\Omega (4,-2,0)$, which points in a different direction. A bearing can enforce fixed-axis rotation despite this difference, supplying the necessary transverse torque.

For an in-plane unit vector $\mathbf{n}=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ,0)$, the planar model hasIts extrema are the principal moments of inertia $(7-\sqrt{13})m{a}^2$ and $(7+\sqrt{13})m{a}^2$; the remaining principal moment of inertia is $14m{a}^2$. These values follow from the two-by-two characteristic polynomial $(4-\lambda )(10-\lambda )-4$, so they can be checked without trusting a numerical eigenvalue routine. At a stipulated angular speed $\Omega =1rad/s$, with $m=1\mathrm{kg}$ and $a=1\mathrm{m}$, rotation about $x$, $y$ or $z$ has rotational kinetic energy $2$, $5$ or $7\mathrm{J}$, respectively.

A truly three-dimensional example adds two more equal point masses at $a(0,0,1)$ and $a(0,0,-1)$. Each contributes $m{a}^2\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0)$ to the inertia tensor, givingThe in-plane principal axes stay the same while their principal moments of inertia each increase by $2m{a}^2$. The $z$ moment of inertia stays unchanged because the added point masses lie on that axis. This comparison changes the total mass from $4m$ to $6m$; it holds the original four point masses fixed rather than redistributing a fixed total mass.

For $0<I_1<I_2<I_3$, the transverse linear stability rates about steady rotation with signed component $\Omega \ne 0$ areAxes one and three have transverse eigenvalues $\pm i{\nu }_1$ and $\pm i{\nu }_3$, producing bounded oscillations. Axis two has transverse eigenvalues $\pm {\lambda }_2$, giving growing and decaying exponential functions. A neutral longitudinal perturbation corresponds to a small change of $\Omega$. Generic intermediate-axis disturbances contain a growing component; a precisely chosen decaying direction is exceptional. For the normalized intermediate-axis model with $|\Omega |=1$, the values are ${\nu }_1=1/\sqrt{3}$, ${\nu }_3=1$ and ${\lambda }_2=1/\sqrt{3}$.

Proof outline: the linearization of the Euler equations for a torque-free rigid body about the third principal axis gives transverse perturbations obeyingand henceCyclic permutation gives the other rates. For nonlinear Lyapunov stability of the extreme rotations, use the torque-free rigid-body invariants: the conserved quadratic forms $L^2-2I_{1}E$ and $2I_{3}E-L^2$ have strictly positive transverse coefficients about axes one and three respectively. They bound transverse angular velocity, while $E$ bounds its longitudinal change near nonzero rotation. Imaginary transverse eigenvalues alone would not establish this nonlinear conclusion.^[ref]

The practical lesson is to choose a stable principal axis when using rotation to maintain an instrument's pointing direction. Both extreme principal moments of inertia are stable in the ideal torque-free model; if internal damping lowers rotational kinetic energy while approximately preserving angular momentum, the minimum energy $E=L^2/(2I_3)$ instead favors the largest principal moment of inertia. A control system must account for torque, changing mass distributions and flexibility before applying this ideal result.

Put the cylinder's centre at the origin, with $-h/2\le z\le h/2$, $0\le r\le a$, and uniform density $\rho =M/(\pi a^{2}h)$. Symmetry makes the inertia tensor diagonal and gives $I_1=I_2$. Direct integration yieldsFor a transverse principal moment of inertia, the two contributions areTherefore $\boxed{I_1=I_2=M(a^2/4+h^2/12),I_3=M{a}^2/2}$ are the three principal moments of inertia.

A Lagrange top is a rigid body that is symmetric about a principal axis, has a point on that axis fixed in space, and has its center of mass on the same axis while gravity acts uniformly. Here $I_1=I_2$ is the transverse principal moment of inertia about the fixed point, $I_3$ is the moment about the symmetry axis, $M$ is the total mass, and $l$ is the distance from the fixed point to the center of mass.

The Euler angles for a symmetric top use $\theta$ for inclination, $\varphi$ for precession, and $\psi$ for spin about the body axis. Since $\psi$ is a cyclic coordinate, its generalized momentumis conserved. The coordinate $\varphi$ is also cyclic, sois a second integral. Finally, the Lagrangian has no explicit time dependence, and conservation of energy from time-translation invariance gives the independent integral

For steady precession set $\theta$ constant and $\dot{\varphi }=\Omega$ constant. The $\theta$ Euler-Lagrange equation, with $0<\theta <\pi /2$, reduces after division by $\sin \theta$ toThis quadratic has a real precession rate precisely when its quadratic discriminant is nonnegative. Hence Steady precession of a Lagrange top is possible if and only if

The principal moments of inertia about a specified point $O$ are the eigenvalues $I_1,I_2,I_3$ of the inertia tensor ${\mathbf{I}}_O$. Their associated unit vectors that are eigenvectors specify principal axes through $O$. The spectral theorem for real symmetric matrices guarantees an orthonormal basis of these eigenvectors, even for an irregular rigid body. Choose their signs to make a right-handed basis and collect them as the columns of an orthogonal matrix $Q$:Thus diagonalization removes the off-diagonal coupling in the rotational kinetic energy. The eigenvalues belong to the mass distribution and reference point, independently of which orthonormal basis initially describes them. ^[ref]

In this principal body frame, write angular velocity as $\mathbf{\omega }={\sum }_i{\omega }_i{\mathbf{e}}_i$. ThenUse these as total angular momentum and kinetic energy only under the reference-point conditions stated under inertia tensor. Along a single principal axis with $I_i>0$, angular momentum is parallel to angular velocity. For a mixture of directions with different principal moments of inertia, it generally is not. A principal axis need not be a geometric symmetry axis: it is selected by the complete mass distribution. A principal axis also need not give stable free rotation; for three distinct principal moments of inertia, the intermediate axis theorem supplies the stability distinction.

For any unit vector $\mathbf{n}={\sum }_i{n}_i{\mathbf{e}}_i$,The axial moment of inertia is a weighted average of the principal moments of inertia. At fixed angular speed, the least and greatest rotational kinetic energies occur in the corresponding eigenspaces. At fixed nonzero angular momentum magnitude $L$, instead, $K=\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_i{L}_i^2/I_i$, so the largest principal moment of inertia gives the smallest rotational kinetic energy. These comparisons hold the reference point fixed.

There is an additional physical restriction beyond positive semidefiniteness. In principal axes coordinates,with two analogous cyclic inequalities. Therefore three arbitrary positive numbers do not always represent a possible inertia tensor. For a distribution in the $xy$ plane through $O$, $I_3=I_1+I_2$, as in the planar inertia tensor of paired point masses. A uniform solid ellipsoid of mass $M$ and semiaxes $a,b,c$ supplies a continuous three-dimensional example: using its mass second-moment tensor, its central principal moments of inertia are $M(b^2+c^2)/5$, $M(a^2+c^2)/5$, $M(a^2+b^2)/5$. Setting $a=b=c=R$ recovers the moment of inertia of a uniform solid sphere.

For strictly positive principal moments of inertia and a fixed rotational kinetic energy $K_0>0$, the allowed angular velocity components form an ellipsoid:Its semiaxis lengths $s_i$ have units of angular speed. The longest semiaxis corresponds to the smallest principal moment of inertia: that direction permits the greatest angular speed for the same rotational kinetic energy. This is a surface in angular velocity space, not the physical outline of the body. If one principal moment of inertia vanishes in an ideal line-mass model, this constant-energy surface is unbounded in that direction and is no longer an ellipsoid.

The rotational energy ellipsoid gives the geometry behind Poinsot's ellipsoid, but a constant-energy surface alone does not determine a free-rotation trajectory. A torque-free trajectory must also satisfy the conserved angular momentum constraint and the Euler equations for a torque-free rigid body.

PASCO's PASPORT Rotary Motion Sensor Experiment Guide, Experiment 1, specifies a PS-2120A sensor, a rod carrying two equal-radius weights, a three-step drive wheel, a thread and hanging mass, a clamp-on guide wheel, a support, a balance and calipers. The thread leaves the drive wheel tangentially. The sensor records angular velocity against time; a linear regression over the accelerating interval supplies angular acceleration $\alpha$. The guide measures the drive radius with calipers and repeats the run with the weights removed to subtract the apparatus's own moment of inertia. Its tables are blank: it prescribes a measurement and does not report an observed numerical agreement. ^[ref]

With hanging mass $m_h$ including its hanger, effective drive radius $b$, no thread slip and negligible guide-wheel inertia, Newton's second law gives thread tension $F=m_h(g-b\alpha )$. The axial torque is $bF$. Under negligible friction, the inference is thereforeRepeat the inference for the unloaded assembly and subtract: $I_{\mathrm{weights}}=I_{\mathrm{loaded}}-I_{\mathrm{empty}}$. Omitting the $m_h{b}^2$ term incorrectly treats thread tension as the hanging weight. Comparing with $(M_1+M_2)R^2$ tests the point mass approximation; finite-sized weights also have their own moments of inertia about their centres of mass. ^[ref]

Useful proposed checks go beyond that ideal inference. Verify the rotary encoder's angle scale by turning the shaft through a marked full revolution; check the recorded time against an independent clock and the balance against a known mass. Measure $b$ at the thread's running surface, including thread thickness; avoid overlapping wraps that change $b$. Release without a push, inspect the angular velocity record for a straight interval, and stop before the hanger lands or the thread runs out. Repeat with several hanging masses, weight radii and rotation directions. A consistent inferred moment of inertia across drive torques supports the model; curvature, direction dependence or drift indicates a limitation rather than a new principal moment of inertia.

For approximately constant resisting torque ${\tau }_f\ge 0$ in one rotation direction, an original calibration model isFit the left-hand quantity against $\alpha$ across several drives: the slope estimates the axial moment of inertia and the intercept estimates ${\tau }_f$. This calibration is conditional on friction remaining constant over the fitted angular speeds; a freely slowing run can expose speed dependence. Sensor differentiation noise, guide-wheel moment of inertia, thread slip, flexing connectors and uncertain weight radii limit the inference. Removing weights can also change bearing loads, so empty-apparatus subtraction does not automatically cancel friction. These are proposed controls and a model extension, not results claimed by PASCO.

A fixed-axis readout measures ${\mathbf{n}}^T{\mathbf{I}}_O\mathbf{n}$, not the full inertia tensor. In a proposed generalization, repeat about $x$, $y$, $z$ and the three diagonal directions $({\mathbf{e}}_x+{\mathbf{e}}_y)/\sqrt{2}$, $({\mathbf{e}}_x+{\mathbf{e}}_z)/\sqrt{2}$, $({\mathbf{e}}_y+{\mathbf{e}}_z)/\sqrt{2}$, all through the same $O$. For example,Six independent scalar readings then determine the six entries of a symmetric matrix. Each mounting needs its own apparatus correction, and different reference points require the tensor parallel-axis theorem before the readings can be combined.