Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Tina wrote in news:ba6ee109-c6e5-4633-ae25-
:

Sorry. Rigid bodies do NOT rotate around their cg if an external
force
is applied whose vector goes thru it.

Drop a yardstick, cg at the 18 inch mark, so that its zero inch
edge
hits a table. The center of rotation as a reaction to that force
is
the table edge.

You may write an equation that descibes rotation around its cg,
and
another that describes translation, but a center of rotation, to
many
who deal with such things, is that point on a rotating body whose
translational motion does not include rotation, the body appears
to
rotate around it.

In the case I just described, such a point is at the end of the
yardstick.

You are obviously defining center of rotation differenrtly than I
am,
but my American Institute of Physics Handbook on page 2-9 talks
about
rotation "in which some axis or point remains fixed in space".
That
is
the center of rotation. In the several examples I've given that
axis,
the center of rotation, is not at the center of gravity.

I am sure the math and classical physics folks use the same
definition. It's perfectly fine to talk abou other ways of
describing
rotation, but engineers who think about it a little, even if they
are
pilots, would tend, I expect, tend to agree with AIP handbook if
they
are trying to communicate with other engineers.
.
As I claimed earlier, if allowed thusters on a rigid body, I can
make
it rotate around ANY point. The table edge in my example could be
replace by such a thruster.
I doidn't say you couldn't.
Now, if the forces are removed, you will get no argument from me
that
rotation is about the CG. The forces are not removed in the OP's
question.

Sigh.
Ok'



Bertie

There was an optimist, a pessimist, and an engineer. The optimist
said,
"This bottle is half full"
The pessimist said,
"This bottle is half empty"
The engineer said;
"Yo!...... Will one of you PLEASE call those idiots over in
management
and tell them this F*****g bottle is twice as big as it has to be!"



Mmm, k. I presume that this is a variation of the three blind guys
and
the elephant?

Bertie.


Well, one could I guess, make a comparison based on an incomplete and
partial picture denies the whole truth scenario, but on the other
hand,
in the world I know anyway, I've never met an engineer who wouldn't
swear they were right about the whole, even if they hadn't touched the
elephant at all:-)))


You flatter me sir!

Bertie