4
$\begingroup$

enter image description here

I think the equation(3.73) should be:

$\dot p-w_s$x$p=\dot p-\dot p=0$

have no idea how it can be wrong

and don't know the difference between infinitely large body and a body just include the fix-frame origin and body-frame origin

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ They are choosing to rewrite $\nu_s$ so you can see the idea of the infinitely large body in the equation. It's a valid way to write the equation, so not wrong. Are you asking why $\dot{p} \neq \omega_s \times p$ instead? $\endgroup$ – hauptmech Sep 9 at 6:18
  • $\begingroup$ @hauptmech thanks. yes i m asking why $\dot p≠w_s×p $ instead. $\endgroup$ – E Takly Sep 9 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to Robotics, E Takly. Great first question! I'm looking forwards to an answer on this - questions like this, and the difficulty I had in trying to conceptually understand the physical meaning of spatial maths, are exactly why I wound up walking away from this approach to dynamics. I'm hoping a really good answer to this question might be enough to get something to click for me, too. $\endgroup$ – Chuck Sep 9 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Chuck ha, me too,really want to give up $\endgroup$ – E Takly Sep 9 at 20:35
5
$\begingroup$

A coordinate transformation of a point P from Frame 1 to Frame 0 is given by: $$ \mathbf{p}^0=\mathbf{o}^0_1+\mathbf{R}^0_1\mathbf{p}^1. $$ Differentiating with respect to time gives: $$ \dot{\mathbf{p}}^0=\dot{\mathbf{o}}^0_1+\mathbf{R}^0_1\dot{\mathbf{p}}^1+\dot{\mathbf{R}}^0_1\mathbf{p}^1. $$ Considering that $\dot{\mathbf{p}}^1=0$ as $\mathbf{p}^1$ is fixed in Frame 1, we come up with: $$ \dot{\mathbf{p}}^0=\dot{\mathbf{o}}^0_1+\mathbf{S}\left(\mathbf{\omega}^0_1\right)\mathbf{R}^0_1\mathbf{p}^1, $$ being $\mathbf{S}$ the skew matrix. This expression can be further reduced noting that $\mathbf{R}^0_1\mathbf{p}^1=\mathbf{r}^0_1$: $$ \dot{\mathbf{p}}^0=\dot{\mathbf{o}}^0_1+\mathbf{\omega}^0_1 \times \mathbf{r}^0_1, $$ which is eventually the known form of the velocity composition rule.

To come back to your statement, $\dot{\mathbf{p}}^0=\mathbf{\omega}^0_1 \times \mathbf{r}^0_1$ holds only when $\dot{\mathbf{o}}^0_1=0$, that is when there exists a pure rotational velocity without translational velocity.

This result can be obtained also by observing that a vector $\mathbf{p}$ can be expressed in terms of its magnitude $p$ and unit vector $\mathbf{\hat{p}}$ as: $$ \mathbf{p}=p \cdot \mathbf{\hat{p}}. $$ Thereby, the time derivative is: $$ \dot{\mathbf{p}}=\dot{p}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{p}}+p\cdot\dot{\mathbf{\hat{p}}}=\dot{p}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{p}}+\mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{p}. $$ Only in case there is a pure rotational velocity (i.e. $\dot{p}=0$), then you'll get: $$ \dot{\mathbf{p}}=\mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{p}. $$

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The steps from $\dot{\mathbf{R}}^0_1\mathbf{p}^1$ to $\mathbf{S}\left(\mathbf{\omega}^0_1\right)\mathbf{R}^0_1\mathbf{p}^1$ are shown in the angular velocity wikipedia article. Murray, Li, and Sastry remains my favorite explainer of robot maths and page 51-52 shows the steps as well. $\endgroup$ – hauptmech Sep 9 at 22:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ legend, thank you. didn't notice the translation.so the equation(3.73) becomes: $\dot{\mathbf{p}}-\mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{p}=$$ \dot{p}\cdot\hat{p}+p\cdot\dot{\hat{p}} -\mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{p}=\dot{p}\cdot\hat{p}+\mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{p} - \mathbf{\omega} \times \mathbf{p} = \dot{p}\cdot\hat{p}. $ is it right? $\endgroup$ – E Takly Sep 9 at 23:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @E Takly, you are right. $\endgroup$ – Ugo Pattacini Sep 10 at 6:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.