Book-throwing and physics.

Grab a book, or an empty DVD case, or anything else that's a uniform rectangular solid. If it's a book, you might want to secure the book closed with tape or a very lightweight clip, because we'll be throwing it in the air. We want to test a theory.

In classical mechanics we know that each solid object has three special rotational axes, called "principal axes". Intuitively, imagine the object is shaped from styrofoam. The principal axes are the axes along which you can spear the object with a wooden dowel, and the object doesn't try to "wobble" when you rotate the dowel. Aligning a car tire is simply the process of making sure the axle and the principal axis of the tire are collinear. There's a somewhat involved mathematical procedure you can use to calculate the principal axes (there's always three of them*), but frequently we can find them a priori without any math just by looking for axes of symmetry. Pulling a picture from Wikipedia, here's one principal axis of our book:

i-a4d305fcfba2c7cc8b77a22ca4928ae5-Recplane.JPG

There are two more principal axes, and we can find them in the same way. One runs through the center, parallel to the spine. One runs through the center, parallel to the lines of text. If we throw the book in the air such that it's rotating exactly about one of those axes, it won't wobble.

But it's not possible to be perfect. We will inevitably be a tiny bit off. In that case, what happens? To answer, we look at Euler's equations which describe this sort of scenario:

i-d4bb9fe09d6b78eb832985821d8a307f-1.png

The various "I" represent the moment of inertia about each principal axis, and the little omega represent the angular velocity about those axes, which is just the rate of spin. Notice the equations are coupled: the rates of spin about one axis affect the change of the rate of spin in the others. However, we see that if the rotation is initially about just one axis (say, ω1 ) the rotation about the other two will stay zero because their initial rotation rates are zero.

But if the initial rotation isn't perfectly aligned with a principal axis, all three omegas may be nonzero. What happens then? Well, we can solve these equations approximately and we'll see that in fact the rotation stays nearly aligned with the principal axis, with a slight precession with a frequency given by Ω. I'll skip the math. It isn't hard, but it's not very instructive either. In any case, the frequency of precession is:

i-88516ca505d84f969b7ab15a965c3fb3-2.png

Here we've numbered the axes such that 3 is the one about which we were mostly initially rotating modulo the very slight rotations about the other two. ω with the 0 subscripted is just the initial rotational speed.

Now here's the tricky part. Ω is square, so it must be a positive number. This will be true if I3 is the largest moment of inertia, as both terms in the denominator will be positive. This will also be true if I3 is the smallest moment of inertia, as both terms will be negative, and negative times negative is positive. But if I3 is the middle-sized moment of inertia, clearly we get a negative, and a squared real number can't be negative. Our assumption that the tiny imperfection in our throw doesn't matter must therefore fail if we're initially rotating about that middle-inertia axis.

So throw that book such that it's spinning about the axis in the picture. It'll work great. Throw it such that it's spinning about the axis parallel to the spine. It'll work great. Throw it so that it's spinning about the axis parallel to the text. It will wobble crazily, no matter how hard you work on the careful precision of your throw. Bet your friend a dollar that he can't do it, and physics will make you a dollar richer.

*With especially symmetrical objects like spheres and car tires the axes are not necessarily uniquely specified. There are still three of them, just with sort of a "phase freedom" in their orientation.

More like this

I saw this video on several places. It shows an astronaut playing with a CD player. I wish I were an astronaut. I would probably not stop throwing up though. It would still be worth it. You can only throw up so much right? (I know the answer to this question). Anyway, this is a really cool…
The third of the great physics principles introduced in our introductory mechanics courses is the conservation of angular momentum, or the Angular Momentum Principle in the language of the Matter and Interactions curriculum we use. This tends to be one of the hardest topics to introduce, in no…
"Imperfection clings to a person, and if they wait till they are brushed off entirely, they would spin for ever on their axis, advancing nowhere." -Thomas Carlyle When you take a look up at the sky, the two most prominent objects are the Sun and the Moon. And every day, like clockwork, they rise…
"Galileo got it wrong. The Earth does not revolve around the Sun. It revolves around you and has been doing so for decades. At least, this is the model you are using." -Srikumar Rao It's the end of the week, so that means its time to take on another one of your questions from the question/…

Very cool post. It just leaves me with one question:

Does the dowel have to be wooden?

And hence we have the explanation for why Joe Kapp's passes flew as they did.

I find this demonstration also works very well with a tennis racket.

Aircraft with three unique principle axes can get into nasty trouble - the aerobatic Lomcévak (Czech). The first stunt pilot broke both forearms when the yoke went wild. He successfully bailed out but was unable to do anything useful with the rip cord.

It's even more fun than that! Lopsided asteroids with three unique principal axes tumble. Sunlight impinging on the tumbling body then randomly thrusts. Their orbits unpredictably wander over time. It adds a wild card to NEO orbital extrapolations re clobbering time.

I remember when my friends and I learned about this in college. We went around the dorm throwing everything up in the air we could think of to test it out. Great fun.