I get the basic “axes double up” idea, but why are the axes not stationary in the first place? Why would motion change them? Isn’t there a better way to track motion that wouldn’t require something as complicated as quaternions?
If you track 7 points, one being the center, and then equal distance up, down, left, right, front, back, doesn’t that allow you to track all rotational motion with no need for four-dimentional number systems?
In: Physics
> but why are the axes not stationary in the first place?
The whole concept behind using a gyroscope to track motion requires that the axes not be fixed. When the craft changes orientation the spinning gyroscope will try to maintain its rotational momentum and so the craft’s orientation doesn’t affect that of the gyroscope. By measuring how the orientation of the craft differs from that of the gyroscope the actual orientation of the craft can be determined.
If the axes were stationary with respect to the craft it was mounted in then when the craft changed orientation the gyroscope would be forced to do so as well. That would defeat the entire purpose of the apparatus.
> If you track 7 points, one being the center, and then equal distance up, down, left, right, front, back, doesn’t that allow you to track all rotational motion with no need for four-dimentional number systems?
How are you determining and tracking, for example, “left”? How do you know what that direction is if you are in an aircraft that starts changing its orientation?
Latest Answers