format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a recent article  in this Journal, Abramowicz and Szuszkiewicz remarked on an interesting analogy between orbits above the equator of a “wall of death” and orbits near a black hole; namely that the centrifugal force in both cases appears to point towards rather than away from the center of an appropriate coordinate system. Here we take a “wall of death” to be a hollow sphere on the Earth’s surface large enough that a motorcycle can be driven on the inside of the sphere. The intriguing question is whether there exist stable orbits for the motorcycle that lie entirely above the equator (horizontal great circle) of the sphere.

In ref.  the authors stated that no such orbits are possible, perhaps recalling the well-known result for a particle sliding freely on the inside of a sphere in a uniform gravitational field. However, the extra degrees of freedom associated with a rolling wheel (or sphere) actually do permit such orbits, in apparent defiance of intuition. In particular, the friction associated with the condition of rolling without slipping can in some circumstances have an upward component large enough to balance all other downward forces.

In this paper we examine the character of all circular orbits inside a fixed sphere, for both wheels and spheres that roll without slipping. The rolling constraint is velocity dependent (non-holonomous), so explicit use of a Lagrangian is not especially effective. Instead we follow a vectorial approach as advocated by Milne (Chap. 17) . This approach does utilize the rolling constraint, a careful choice of coordinates, and the elimination of the constraint force from the equations of motion, all of which are implicit in Lagrange’s method. The vector approach is, of course, a convenient codification of earlier methods in which individual components were explicitly written out. Compare with classic works such as those of Lamb (Chap. 9) , Deimel (Chap. 7)  and Routh (Chap. 5) .

Once the solutions are obtained in sec. 2 for rolling wheels we make a numerical evaluation of the magnitude of the acceleration in $`g`$’s, and of the required coefficient of static friction on some representative orbits. The resulting parameters are rather extreme, and the circus name “sphere of death” seems apt.

The stability of steady orbits of wheels is considered in some detail, but completely general results are not obtained (because the general motion has four degrees of freedom). All vertical orbits are shown to be stable, as are horizontal orbits around the equator of the sphere. We also find that all horizontal orbits away from the poles are stable in the limit of small wheels, and conjecture that the a similar condition holds for “death-defying” orbits of large wheels above the equator of the sphere. In sec. 4 we lend support to this conjecture by comparing to the related case of a sphere rolling within a sphere for which a complete stability analysis can be given.

Discussions of wheels and spheres rolling outside a fixed sphere are given in secs. 3 and 5, respectively.

## 2 Wheel Rolling Inside a Fixed Sphere

### 2.1 Generalities

We consider a wheel of radius $`a`$ rolling without slipping on a circular orbit on the inner surface of a sphere of radius $`r>a`$. The analysis is performed in the lab frame, in which the sphere is fixed. The $`z`$-axis is vertical and upwards with origin at the center of the sphere as shown in Fig. 1. As the wheel rolls on the sphere, the point of contact traces a path that is an arc of a circle during any short interval. In steady motion the path forms closed circular orbits which are of primary interest here. We therefore introduce a set of axes $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ that are related to the circular motion of the point of contact. If the motion is steady, these axes are fixed in the lab frame.

The normal to the plane of the circular orbit through the center of the sphere (and also through the center of the circle) is labeled $`z^{}`$. The angle between axes $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$ is $`\beta `$ with $`0\beta \pi /2`$. A radius from the center of the sphere to the point of contact of the wheel sweeps out a cone of angle $`\theta `$ about the $`z^{}`$ axis, where $`0\theta \pi `$. The azimuthal angle of the point of contact on this cone is called $`\varphi `$, with $`\varphi =0`$ defined by the direction of the $`x^{}`$-axis, which is along the projection of the $`z`$-axis onto the plane of the orbit, as shown in Fig. 2. Unit vectors are labeled with a superscript $`\widehat{}`$, so that $`\widehat{𝐲}^{}=\widehat{𝐳}^{}\times \widehat{𝐱}^{}`$ completes the definition of the -coordinate system.

For a particle sliding freely, the only stationary orbits have $`\beta =0`$ (horizontal circles) or $`\beta =\pi /2`$ (vertical great circles). For wheels and spheres rolling inside a sphere it turns out that $`\beta =0`$ or $`\pi /2`$ also, as we will demonstrate. However, the friction at the point of contact in the rolling cases permits orbits with a larger range of $`\theta `$ than in the sliding case. If $`\beta =0`$ or $`\pi /2`$ were accepted as an assumption the derivation could be shortened somewhat.

We also introduce a right-handed coordinate triad of unit vectors $`(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ related to the geometry of the wheel. Axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ lies along the symmetry axis of the wheel as shown shown in Fig. 1. Axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ is directed from the center of the wheel to the point of contact of the wheel with the sphere. The vector from the center of the wheel to the point of contact is then

$$𝐚=a\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(1)
Axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ lies in the plane of the wheel, and also in the plane of the orbit (the $`x^{}`$-$`y^{}`$ plane). The sense of axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is chosen so that the component $`\omega _1`$ of the angular velocity vector $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ of the wheel about this axis is positive. Consequently, axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ points in the direction of the velocity of the point of contact, and therefore is parallel to the tangent to the orbit.

Except for axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$, these rotating axes are not body axes, but the inertia tensor is diagonal with respect to them. We write

$$I_{11}=2kma^2,I_{22}=kma^2=I_{33},$$
(2)
which holds for any circularly symmetric disc according to the perpendicular axis theorem; $`k=1/2`$ for a wheel of radius $`a`$ with mass $`m`$ concentrated at the rim, $`k=1/4`$ for a uniform disc, etc.

The wheel does not necessarily lie in the plane of the orbit. Indeed, it is the freedom to “bank” the wheel that makes the “death-defying” orbits possible. The diameter of the wheel through the point of contact (i.e., axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$) makes angle $`\alpha `$ to the plane of the orbit. In general, a wheel can have an arbitrary rotation about the $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$-axis, but the wheel will roll steadily along a closed circular orbit orbit only if angular velocity component $`\omega _3`$ is such that the plane of the wheel intersects the plane of the orbit along the tangent to the orbit at the point of contact. Hence, for steady motion we will be able to deduce a constraint on $`\omega _3`$. The case of a rolling sphere is distinguished by the absence of this constraint, as considered later.

Since the wheel lies inside the sphere, as shown in Fig. 3, we can readily deduce the geometric relation that

$$\theta \pi +\mathrm{sin}^1(a/r)<\alpha <\theta \mathrm{sin}^1(a/r).$$
(3)
It is useful to introduce $`𝐫^{}=r^{}\widehat{𝐫}^{}`$ as the perpendicular vector from the $`z^{}`$-axis to the center of the wheel. The magnitude $`r^{}`$ is given by

$$r^{}=r\mathrm{sin}\theta a\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,$$
(4)
as shown in Fig. 4. The vector $`\widehat{𝐳}^{}\times \widehat{𝐫}^{}`$ is in the direction of motion of the point of contact, which was defined previously to be direction $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. That is, $`(\widehat{𝐫}^{},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{𝐳}^{})`$ form a right-handed unit triad, which is related to the triad $`(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ by

$$\widehat{𝐳}^{}=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(5)
and

$$\widehat{𝐫}^{}=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}\times \widehat{𝐳}^{}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(6)
as can be seen from Fig. 1.

The length $`r^{}`$ is negative when the center of the wheel is on the opposite side of the $`z^{}`$-axis from the point of contact. This can occur for large enough $`a/r`$ when the point of contact is near the $`z^{}`$-axis, such as when $`\theta 0`$ and $`\alpha <0`$ or $`\theta \pi `$ and $`\alpha >0`$.

The force of contact of the sphere on the wheel is labeled $`𝐅`$. For the wheel to be in contact with the sphere the force $`𝐅`$ must have a component towards the center of the sphere, which will be verified after the motion is obtained.

The equation of motion of the center of mass of the wheel is

$$m\frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}=𝐅mg\widehat{𝐳},$$
(7)
where $`g`$ is the acceleration due to gravity. The equation of motion for the angular momentum $`𝐋_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ about the center of mass is

$$\frac{d𝐋_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt}=𝐍_{\mathrm{cm}}=𝐚\times 𝐅.$$
(8)
We eliminate the unknown force $`𝐅`$ in eq. (8) via eqs. (1) and (7) to find

$$\frac{1}{ma}\frac{d𝐋_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt}=g\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \widehat{𝐳}+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}.$$
(9)
The constraint that the wheel rolls without slipping relates the velocity of the center of mass to the angular velocity vector $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ of the wheel. In particular, the velocity vanishes for that point on the wheel instantaneously in contact with the sphere:

$$𝐯_{\mathrm{contact}}=𝐯_{\mathrm{cm}}+\stackrel{}{\omega }\times 𝐚=0,$$
(10)
and hence

$$𝐯_{\mathrm{cm}}=\frac{d𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt}=a\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \stackrel{}{\omega }.$$
(11)
Multiplying this equation by $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$, we find

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \frac{𝐯_{\mathrm{cm}}}{a}+\omega _3\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(12)
Equations (7)-(12) hold whether the rolling object is a wheel or a sphere.

The strategy now is to extract as much information as possible about the angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ before confronting the full equation of motion (9). The angular velocity can also be written in terms of the unit vector $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ along the symmetry axis of the wheel as

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }=\omega _1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}.$$
(13)
This follows on writing $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=\omega _1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\stackrel{}{\omega }_{}`$, and noting that the rate of change of the body vector $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is just $`d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}/dt=\stackrel{}{\omega }_{}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$, so $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_{}=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}/dt`$. Using eq. (2), the angular momentum can now be written as

$$𝐋_{\mathrm{cm}}=\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{I}}\stackrel{}{\omega }=2kma^2\omega _1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+kma^2\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}.$$
(14)
### 2.2 Steady Motion in a Circle

To obtain additional relations we restrict our attention to orbits in which the point of contact of the wheel with the sphere moves in a closed circle. In such cases the center of mass of the wheel (and also the coordinate triad ($`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$)) has angular velocity $`\dot{\varphi }`$ about the $`\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$-axis (and no other component), where the dot means differentiation with respect to time. Thus

$$𝐯_{\mathrm{cm}}=\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐳}^{}\times r^{}\widehat{𝐫}^{}=r^{}\dot{\varphi }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}.$$
(15)
Equation (12) can now be evaluated, yielding

$$\widehat{\omega }=(r^{}/a)\dot{\varphi }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\omega _3\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(16)
For steady motion there can be no rotation about axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$; angle $`\alpha `$ is constant. To find $`\omega _3`$ we now pursue eq. (13).

As argued above, the angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$ of the triad $`(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ is

$$\stackrel{}{\gamma }=\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐳}^{}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(17)
using eq. (5). Then,

$$\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}=\stackrel{}{\gamma }\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(18)
$$\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}}{dt}=\stackrel{}{\gamma }\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐫}^{},$$
(19)
and

$$\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt}=\stackrel{}{\gamma }\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}.$$
(20)
It immediately follows that

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(21)
Comparing with eq (13) we see that $`\omega _3=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ and hence from eq. (16) we find

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }=(r^{}/a)\dot{\varphi }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(22)
As anticipated, the rolling constraint specifies how $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _3`$ are both related to the angular velocity $`\dot{\varphi }`$ of the wheel about the $`\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$-axis.

For use in the equation of motion (9) we can now write

$$𝐋=\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{I}}\stackrel{}{\omega }=kma^2[2(r^{}/a)\dot{\varphi }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}],$$
(23)
and hence,

$$\frac{1}{ma}\frac{d𝐋}{dt}=2kr^{}\ddot{\varphi }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}k\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha (2r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}ka\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(24)
using eqs. (18-20). Also, by differentiating eq. (15) we find

$$\frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}=r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+r^{}\ddot{\varphi }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(25)
so that

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}=r^{}\ddot{\varphi }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}.$$
(26)
Combining (9), (24) and (26), the equation of motion reads

$`g\widehat{𝐳}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ma}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐋}{dt}}`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`(2k+1)r^{}\ddot{\varphi }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+[(2k+1)r^{}+ka\mathrm{cos}\alpha ]\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}+ka\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.`$
To evaluate $`\widehat{𝐳}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$, we first express $`\widehat{z}`$ in terms of the triad ($`\widehat{𝐫}^{},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$), and then transform to triad ($`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$). When the point of contact of the wheel (and hence the $`\widehat{𝐫}^{}`$-axis) has azimuth $`\varphi `$ relative to the $`\widehat{𝐱}^{}`$ axis, the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ axis has azimuth $`\varphi `$ relative to the $`\widehat{𝐫}^{}`$ axis. Hence,

$`\widehat{𝐳}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \widehat{𝐫}^{}\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}+\mathrm{cos}\beta \widehat{𝐳}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}(\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},`$
using eqs. (5)-(6). Thus,

$$\widehat{𝐳}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}.$$
(29)
The $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ components of the equation of motion are now

$$(2k+1)r^{}\ddot{\varphi }=g\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(30)
$$[(2k+1)r^{}+ka\mathrm{cos}\alpha ]\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha =g(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\beta +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ),$$
(31)
and

$$ka\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha =0.$$
(32)
The cone angle $`\theta `$ enters the equations of motion only through $`r^{}`$.

#### 2.2.1 Vertical Orbits

From eq. (32) we learn that for circular orbits either $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =0`$ or $`\ddot{\varphi }=0`$. We first consider the simpler case that $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =0`$, which implies that the plane of the wheel lies in the plane of the orbit. For a wheel inside the sphere with $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =0`$, we must have $`\alpha =0`$ to satisfy the geometric constraint (3). Then eq. (31) can only be satisfied if $`\mathrm{cos}\beta =0`$; i.e., $`\beta =\pi /2`$ and the plane of the orbit is vertical. The remaining equation of motion (30) now reads

$$(2k+1)r^{}\ddot{\varphi }=g\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(33)
with $`r^{}=r\mathrm{sin}\theta a>0`$, which integrates to

$$\frac{2k+1}{2}mr^2(\dot{\varphi }^2\dot{\varphi }_0^2)=mgr^{}(1\mathrm{cos}\varphi ),$$
(34)
where $`\dot{\varphi }_0`$ is the angular velocity at the top of the orbit at which $`\varphi =0`$. Equation (34) expresses conservation of energy. The angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ and the angular momentum $`𝐋_{\mathrm{cm}}`$ vary in magnitude but are always perpendicular to the plane of the orbit.

The requirement that the wheel stay in contact with the sphere is that the contact force $`𝐅`$ have component $`F_{}`$ that points to the center of the sphere. On combining eqs. (7), (25), (2.2) and (33) we find

$$𝐅=\frac{2k}{2k+1}mg\mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}+m(g\mathrm{cos}\varphi r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2)\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(35)
The contact force is in the plane of the orbit, so the resulting torque about the center of mass of the wheel changes the magnitude but not the direction of the angular momentum. On the vertical orbits, axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ is tangent to the sphere, and axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ makes angle $`\pi /2\theta `$ to the radius from the center of the sphere to the point of contact. Hence

$$F_{}=F_3\mathrm{sin}\theta $$
(36)
is positive and the orbit is physical so long as the angular velocity $`\dot{\varphi }_0`$ at the peak of the orbit obeys

$$\dot{\varphi }_0^2>\frac{g}{r^{}},$$
(37)
as readily deduced from elementary considerations as well.

The required coefficient $`\mu `$ of static friction is given by $`\mu =F_{}/F_{}`$ where

$$F_{}=\sqrt{F_3^2\mathrm{cos}\theta ^2+F_2^2}$$
(38)
is the component of the contact force parallel to the surface of the sphere. We see that

$$\mu =\mathrm{cot}\theta \sqrt{1+(F_2/F_3\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2},$$
(39)
which must be greater than $`\mathrm{cot}\theta `$, but only much greater if the wheel nearly loses contact at the top of the orbit. Hence orbits with π/4

<

θπ/2

<

𝜋4𝜃𝜋2\pi/4\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$<$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}\theta\leq\pi/2 are consistent with the friction of typical rubber wheels, namely μ

<

1

<

𝜇1\mu\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$<$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}1.

Because a wheel experiences friction at the point of contact, vertical orbits are possible with $`\theta <\pi /2`$. This is in contrast to the case of a particle sliding freely on the inside of a sphere for which the only vertical orbits are great circles ($`\theta =\pi /2`$). The only restriction in the present case is that the wheel fits inside the sphere, i.e., $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta >a`$, and that the minimum angular velocity satisfy eq. (37).

#### 2.2.2 Horizontal Orbits

The second class of orbits is defined by $`\ddot{\varphi }=0`$, so that the angular velocity is constant, say $`\dot{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. From eq. (30) we see that $`\mathrm{sin}\beta =0`$ and hence $`\beta =0`$ for these orbits, which implies that they are horizontal. Then eq. (31) gives the relation between the required angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the geometrical parameters of the orbit:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\frac{g\mathrm{cot}\alpha }{(2k+1)r^{}+ka\mathrm{cos}\alpha }=\frac{g\mathrm{cot}\alpha }{(2k+1)r\mathrm{sin}\theta (k+1)a\mathrm{cos}\alpha },$$
(40)
recalling eq. (4). Compare Ex. 3, sec. 244 of Routh  or sec. 407 of Milne . There are no steady horizontal orbits for which $`\alpha =0`$, i.e., for which the wheel lies in the plane of the orbit. For such an orbit the angular momentum would be constant, but the torque on the wheel would be nonzero in contradiction.

In the following we will find that horizontal orbits are possible only for $`0<\alpha <\pi /2.`$

First, the requirement that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2>0`$ for real orbits puts various restrictions on the parameters of the problem. We examine these for the four quadrants of angle $`\alpha `$.

1. $`0<\alpha <\pi /2`$. Then $`\mathrm{cot}\alpha >0`$ so we must have

$$r^{}>\frac{ka\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{2k+1}.$$
(41)
This is satisfied by all $`r^{}>0`$ and some $`r^{}<0`$. However, for the wheel to fit inside the sphere with $`0<\alpha <\pi /2`$, we can have $`r^{}<0`$ only for $`\theta >\pi /2`$ according to eqs. (3) and (4).
2. $`\pi /2<\alpha <\pi `$. Then $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha <0`$ and $`\mathrm{cot}\alpha <0`$ so the numerator of (40) is negative and the denominator is positive. Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is imaginary and there are no steady orbits in this quadrant.
3. $`\pi <\alpha <\pi /2`$. Then $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha <0`$ but $`\mathrm{cot}\alpha >0`$ so $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2>0`$ and $`r^{}>0`$ and eq. (40) imposes no to restriction. For the wheel to fit inside the sphere with $`\alpha `$ in this quadrant we must have $`\theta <\pi /2`$.
4. $`\pi /2<\alpha <0`$. Then $`\mathrm{cot}\alpha <0`$ so we must have

$$r^{}<\frac{ka\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{2k+1}<0.$$
(42)
For the wheel to be inside the sphere with $`r^{}<0`$ and $`\alpha `$ in this quadrant we must have $`\theta <\pi /2`$.

To obtain further restrictions on the parameters we examine under what conditions the wheel remains in contact with the sphere. The contact force $`𝐅`$ is deduced from eqs. (7), (25) and (2.2) to be

$$𝐅/m=(g\mathrm{cos}\alpha +r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}(g\mathrm{sin}\alpha +r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(43)
It is more useful to express $`𝐅`$ in components along the $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }`$ axes where $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ points away from the center of the sphere and $`\widehat{\theta }`$ points towards increasing $`\theta `$. The two sets of axes are related by a rotation about axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta \alpha )\widehat{𝐫}+\mathrm{sin}(\theta \alpha )\widehat{\theta },\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\mathrm{sin}(\theta \alpha )\widehat{𝐫}+\mathrm{cos}(\theta \alpha )\widehat{\theta },$$
(44)
so that

$`𝐅/m`$ $`=`$ $`(r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}\theta g\mathrm{cos}\theta )\widehat{𝐫}(r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}\theta +g\mathrm{sin}\theta )\widehat{\theta }`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\widehat{𝐫}^{}+g\widehat{𝐳}.`$
The second form of eq. (45) follows directly from elementary considerations. The inward component of the contact force, $`F_{}=F_r`$, is positive and the orbits are physical provided

$$r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2>g\mathrm{cot}\theta .$$
(46)
There can be no orbits with $`r^{}<0`$ and $`\theta <\pi /2`$, which rules out orbits in quadrant 4 of $`\alpha `$, i.e., for $`\pi /2>\alpha <0`$.

Using eq. (40) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ in eq. (46) we deduce that contact is maintained for orbits with $`r^{}>0`$ only if

$$\mathrm{cot}\alpha >[2k+1+k(a/r^{})\mathrm{cos}\alpha ]\mathrm{cot}\theta .$$
(47)
For $`r^{}<0`$ the sign of the inequality is reversed.

In the third quadrant of $`\alpha `$ we have $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha <0`$, so inequality (47) can be rewritten with the aid of (4) as

$$\mathrm{cot}\alpha >\left(1+2k\frac{k}{1+r\mathrm{sin}\theta /a\left|\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right|}\right)\mathrm{cot}\theta >\mathrm{cot}\theta .$$
(48)
However, in this quadrant inequality (3) tells us

$$\mathrm{cot}\alpha <\mathrm{cot}\left[\theta +\mathrm{sin}^1(a/r)\right]<\mathrm{cot}\theta .$$
(49)
Hence there can be no steady orbits with $`\pi <\alpha <\pi /2`$.

Thus steady horizontal orbits are possible only for $`0<\alpha <\pi /2`$. Furthermore, since the factor in brackets of inequality (47) is roughly 2 for a wheel, this kinematic constraint is somewhat stronger than the purely geometric relation (3). However, a large class of orbits remains with $`\theta <\pi /2`$ as well as $`\theta >\pi /2`$.

The coefficient of friction $`\mu `$ at the point of contact must be at least $`F_{}/F_{}`$ where $`F_{}=\left|F_\theta \right|`$ from eq. (45). (For $`\theta >\pi /2`$ and $`\alpha `$ near zero the tangential friction $`F_\theta `$ can sometimes point in the $`+\theta `$ direction.) Hence we need

$$\mu \frac{\left|r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}\theta +g\mathrm{sin}\theta \right|}{r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}\theta g\mathrm{cos}\theta }.$$
(50)
The acceleration of the center of mass of the wheel is $`r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$, so according to eq. (40) the corresponding number of $`g`$’s is

$$\frac{\mathrm{cot}\alpha }{2k+1+k(a/r^{})\mathrm{cos}\alpha }.$$
(51)
Table 1 lists parameters of several horizontal orbits for a sphere of size as might be found in a motorcycle circus. The coefficient of friction of rubber tires is of order one, so orbits more than a few degrees above the equator involve very strong accelerations. The head of the motorcycle rider is closer to the vertical axis of the sphere than is the center of the wheel, so the number of $`g`$’s experienced by the rider is somewhat less than that given in the Table.

Figure 5 illustrates the allowed values of the tilt angle $`\alpha `$ as a function of the angle $`\theta `$ of the plane of the orbit, for $`a/r=0.1`$ as in Table 1.

From eq. (40) we see that $`\alpha =\pi /2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ is a candidate “orbit” in the lower hemisphere. On such an “orbit” the wheel is standing vertically at rest, and is not stable against falling over. We infer that stability will only occur for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ greater than some minimum value not revealed by the analysis thus far.

### 2.3 Stability Analysis

A completely general analysis of the stability of the steady circular orbits found above appears to be very difficult. We give a fairly general analysis for vertical orbits, but for horizontal orbits we obtain results only for orbits with $`\theta =\pi /2`$, i.e., orbits about the equator of the sphere, and for orbits of “small” wheels.

We follow the approach of sec. 405 of Milne  where it was shown how the steady motion of a disk rolling in a straight line on a horizontal plane is stable if the angular velocity is great enough. It was also shown that the small oscillatory departures from steady motion lead to an oscillatory path of the point of contact of the wheel with the plane. Hence in the present case we must consider perturbations that carry the wheel away from the plane of the steady orbit.

The difficulty is that there are in general four degrees of freedom for departures from steady motion: the axis of the wheel can be perturbed in two directions and the angular velocity $`\dot{\varphi }`$ can be perturbed as well as the angle $`\theta `$ to the point of contact. However, the procedure to eliminate the unknown force of contact from the six equations of motion of a rigid body leaves only three equations of motion. We will obtain solutions to the perturbed equations of motions only in special cases where there are in effect just two or three degrees of freedom. A more general analysis might be possible using the contact force found in steady motion as a first approximation to the contact force in perturbed motion, but we do not pursue this here.

A wheel rolling with a steady circular orbit on a plane can suffer only three types of perturbations and the results of an analysis are reported in Ex. 3, sec. 244 of Routh . For a sphere rolling within a fixed sphere the direction of what we call axis 3 always points to the center of the fixed sphere so there are only two perturbations to consider and the solution is relatively straightforward, as reviewed in sec. 4 below. The stability of horizontal orbits of rolling spheres lends confidence that stable orbits also exist for wheels.

#### 2.3.1 Vertical Orbits

We define the $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ coordinate system to have the $`x^{}`$-axis vertical: $`\widehat{𝐱}^{}=\widehat{𝐳}`$. In steady motion we have

$$\alpha =0,\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}=\widehat{𝐳}^{},\text{and}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\widehat{𝐫}^{}=\widehat{𝐱}^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\widehat{𝐲}^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(52)
where $`\varphi `$ is the azimuth of the center of the wheel from the $`\widehat{𝐱}^{}`$-axis. Thus $`\varphi =0`$ at the top of the orbit. To discuss departures from steady motion in which the $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$-axis is no longer parallel to the $`\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$-axis, it is useful to have a unit triad $`(\widehat{𝐫}^{},\widehat{𝐬}^{},\widehat{𝐳}^{})`$ defined by eq. (52) and

$$\widehat{𝐬}^{}=\widehat{𝐳}^{}\times \widehat{𝐫}^{}=\widehat{𝐱}^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\widehat{𝐲}^{}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,$$
(53)
with $`\varphi `$ defined as before. See Fig. 6. The surface of the sphere at the point of contact is parallel to the $`s^{}`$-$`z^{}`$ plane. Axes $`\widehat{𝐫}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$ rotate about the $`z^{}`$-axis with angular velocity $`\dot{\varphi }`$, so that

$$\frac{d\widehat{𝐫}^{}}{dt}=\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐬}^{},\text{and}\frac{d\widehat{𝐬}^{}}{dt}=\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐫}^{}.$$
(54)
The perturbed $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$-axis can then be written

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}=ϵ_r\widehat{𝐫}^{}+ϵ_s\widehat{𝐬}^{}\widehat{𝐳}^{},\text{with}\left|ϵ_r\right|,\left|ϵ_s\right|1,$$
(55)
where throughout the stability analysis we ignore second-order terms. Writing

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\widehat{𝐫}^{}+\delta _s\widehat{𝐬}^{}+\delta _z\widehat{𝐳}^{},\text{with}\left|\delta _s\right|,\left|\delta _z\right|1,$$
(56)
the condition $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=0`$ requires that $`\delta _z=ϵ_r`$. Then to first order,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}=\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}=\delta _s\widehat{𝐫}^{}+\widehat{𝐬}^{}+ϵ_s\widehat{𝐳}^{}.$$
(57)
We expect that vector $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ will remain parallel to the surface of the sphere even for large departure from steady motion, so $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ must remain in the $`s^{}`$-$`z^{}`$ plane. Hence, $`\delta _s=0`$, and

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\widehat{𝐫}^{}+ϵ_r\widehat{𝐳}^{}.$$
(58)
Also, we can identify $`\alpha `$ as the tilt angle of the $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$-axis to the $`r^{}`$-$`s^{}`$ plane, so that

$$\alpha =ϵ_r.$$
(59)
The analysis proceeds along the lines of sec. 2.1 except that now we express all vectors in terms of the triad $`(\widehat{𝐫}^{},\widehat{𝐬}^{},\widehat{𝐳}^{})`$. To the first approximation the angular velocity of the wheel about the $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$-axis is still given by $`\omega _1=(r^{}/a)\dot{\varphi }`$. From eqs. (54) and (55) we find

$$\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}=(\dot{ϵ}_rϵ_s\dot{\varphi })\widehat{𝐫}^{}+(ϵ_r\dot{\varphi }+\dot{ϵ}_s)\widehat{𝐬}^{},$$
(60)
$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}=(ϵ_r\dot{\varphi }+\dot{ϵ}_s)\widehat{𝐫}^{}(\dot{ϵ}_rϵ_s\dot{\varphi })\widehat{𝐬}^{},$$
(61)
so that eq. (13) yields

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }=\omega _1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}=[(1+r^{}/a)ϵ_r\dot{\varphi }+\dot{ϵ}_s]\widehat{𝐫}^{}[\dot{ϵ}_r(1+r^{}/a)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }]\widehat{𝐬}^{}(r^{}/a)\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐳}^{}.$$
(62)
Then eq. (14) tells us

$$\frac{𝐋}{ma}=2ka\omega _1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+ka\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}=k[(2r^{}+a)ϵ_r\dot{\varphi }+a\dot{ϵ}_s]\widehat{𝐫}^{}k[a\dot{ϵ}_r(2r^{}+a)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }]\widehat{𝐬}^{}2kr^{}\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐳}^{},$$
(63)
so that to first order of smallness

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ma}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐋}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`k[2(r^{}+a)\dot{ϵ}_r\dot{\varphi }+(2r^{}+a)(ϵ_r\ddot{\varphi }ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }^2)+a\ddot{ϵ}_s]\widehat{𝐫}^{}`$ (64)
$`k[a\ddot{ϵ}_r(2r^{}+a)(ϵ_r\dot{\varphi }^2ϵ_s\ddot{\varphi })2(r^{}+a)\dot{ϵ}_s\dot{\varphi }]\widehat{𝐬}^{}`$
$`2k(r^{}\ddot{\varphi }+\dot{r}^{}\dot{\varphi })\widehat{𝐳}^{}.`$
In this we have noted from eq. (4) that $`\dot{r}^{}=r\dot{\theta }\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ to first order, and that $`\dot{\theta }`$ is small. Next,

$$\frac{d𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt}=a\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \stackrel{}{\omega }a\widehat{𝐫}^{}\times \stackrel{}{\omega }=r^{}\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐬}^{}[a\dot{ϵ}_r(r^{}+a)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }]\widehat{𝐳}^{}.$$
(65)
Then to first order,

$$\frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}=r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\widehat{𝐫}^{}+(r^{}\ddot{\varphi }+\dot{r}^{}\dot{\varphi })\widehat{𝐬}^{}[a\ddot{ϵ}_r(r^{}+a)(\dot{ϵ}_s\dot{\varphi }+ϵ_s\ddot{\varphi })]\widehat{𝐳}^{},$$
(66)
so that

$`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{r}^{}+ϵ_r\widehat{𝐳}^{})\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}}=`$ (67)
$`r^{}ϵ_r\ddot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐫}^{}+[a\ddot{ϵ}_rr^{}ϵ_r\dot{\varphi }^2(r^{}+a)(\dot{ϵ}_s\dot{\varphi }+ϵ_s\ddot{\varphi })]\widehat{𝐬}^{}+(r^{}\ddot{\varphi }+\dot{r}^{}\dot{\varphi })\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$
Also,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \widehat{𝐳}=(\widehat{𝐫}^{}+ϵ_r\widehat{𝐳}^{})\times (\mathrm{cos}\varphi \widehat{𝐫}^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{𝐬}^{})=ϵ_r\mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{𝐫}^{}+ϵ_s\mathrm{cos}\varphi \widehat{𝐬}^{}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{𝐳}^{}.$$
(68)
The $`r^{}`$, $`s^{}`$ and $`z^{}`$ components of the equation of motion (9) are then

$$0=[(2k+1)r^{}+ka]ϵ_r\ddot{\varphi }+2k(r^{}+a)\dot{ϵ}_r\dot{\varphi }gϵ_r\mathrm{sin}\varphi k(2r^{}+a)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }^2+ka\ddot{ϵ}_s,$$
(69)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`[(2k+1)r+ka]ϵ_r\dot{\varphi }^2(k+1)a\ddot{ϵ}_rgϵ_r\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ (70)
$`+(2k+1)(r^{}+a)\dot{ϵ}_s\dot{\varphi }+[(2k+1)r^{}+(k+1)a]ϵ_s\ddot{\varphi },`$
$$0=(2k+1)(r^{}\ddot{\varphi }+\dot{r}^{}\dot{\varphi })g\mathrm{sin}\varphi .$$
(71)
If the perturbations $`ϵ_r`$, $`ϵ_s`$ and $`\dot{r}^{}`$ are set to zero eqs. (69) and (70) become trivial while eq. (71) becomes the steady equation of motion (33).

The general difficulty with this analysis is that there are only three equations, (69-71), while there are four perturbations, $`ϵ_r`$, $`ϵ_s`$, $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ and $`\dot{\theta }`$. The perturbation $`\dot{\theta }`$ appears only in eq. (71) via $`\dot{r}^{}`$; its effect on $`r^{}`$ leads only to second-order terms in eqs. (69-70). If we could neglect the terms in $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ in eqs. (69-70) then these two equations would describe only the perturbations $`ϵ_r`$ and $`ϵ_s`$ to first order and a solution could be completed.

Therefore we restrict our attention to the top of the orbit, $`\varphi =0`$, where eq. (71) tells us that $`\ddot{\varphi }=0`$ to leading order. The angular velocity $`\dot{\varphi }_0`$ at this point is a minimum so the gyroscopic stability of the wheel is the least here. Hence if the orbit is stable at $`\varphi =0`$ it will be stable at all $`\varphi `$.

The forms of eqs. (69) and (70) for $`\varphi =0`$ indicate that if $`ϵ_r`$ and $`ϵ_s`$ are oscillatory then they are $`90^{}`$ out of phase. Therefore we seek solutions

$$ϵ_r=ϵ_r\mathrm{cos}\omega t,ϵ_s=ϵ_s\mathrm{sin}\omega t,$$
(72)
where $`\omega `$ now represents the oscillation frequency. The coupled equations of motion then yield the simultaneous linear equations

$`2k(r^{}+a)\dot{\varphi }_0\omega ϵ_r`$ $`+`$ $`[ka\omega ^2+k(2r^{}+a)\dot{\varphi }_0^2]ϵ_s=0`$
$`\{(k+1)a\omega ^2+[(2k+1)r^{}+ka]\dot{\varphi }_0^2g\}ϵ_r`$ $`+`$ $`(2k+1)(r^{}+a)\dot{\varphi }_0\omega ϵ_s=0.`$ (73)
These equations are consistent only if the determinant of the coefficient matrix vanishes, which leads to the quadratic equation

$$A\omega ^4B\omega ^2C=0,$$
(74)
with solutions

$$\omega ^2=\frac{B\pm \sqrt{B^2+4AC}}{2A},$$
(75)
where

$$A=k(k+1)a^2,$$
(76)
$$B=kag+k[(2k+1)(2r^2+a^2)+(4k+1)ar^{}]\dot{\varphi }_0^2,$$
(77)
and

$$C=k(2r^{}+a)\left([(2k+1)r^{}+ka]\dot{\varphi }_0^2g\right)\dot{\varphi }_0^2.$$
(78)
Since $`A`$ and $`B`$ are positive there are real, positive roots whenever $`B^2+4AC`$ is positive, i.e., for $`C>B^2/4A`$. In particular, this is satisfied for positive $`C`$, or equivalently for

$$\dot{\varphi }_0^2>\frac{g}{(2k+1)r^{}+ka}.$$
(79)
However, this is less restrictive than the elementary result (37) that the wheel stay in contact with the sphere! All vertical orbits for which the wheel remains in contact with the sphere are stable against small perturbations.

The stability analysis yields the formal result that if $`(\varphi ,\dot{\varphi })=(0,0)`$ then $`\omega =\sqrt{g/(k+1)a}`$. We recognize this as the frequency of oscillation of a simple pendulum formed by suspending the wheel from a point on its rim, the motion being perpendicular to the plane of the wheel.

#### 2.3.2 Horizontal Orbits

We expect the stability analysis of horizontal orbits to be nontrivial since we have identified steady orbits that are “obviously” unstable.

The spirit of the analysis has been set forth in the preceding sections. For horizontal orbits the $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ coordinate system can be taken as identical with the $`(x,y,z)`$ system, so we drop symbol  in this section. We introduce a triad $`(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐬},\widehat{𝐳})`$ with $`\widehat{r}`$ being the perpendicular unit vector from the $`z`$-axis toward the center of the wheel. Then $`\widehat{𝐬}`$ points in the direction of the motion of the center of the wheel in case of steady motion.

It is also useful to introduce a unit triad that points along the $`(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}})`$ axes for steady motion. The $`\widehat{𝐬}`$ axis already points along the $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ axis for steady motion, so we only need define $`\widehat{𝐭}`$ as being along the direction of $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$, and $`\widehat{𝐮}`$ as being along the direction of $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ for steady motion, as shown in Fig. 7. Then, $`(\widehat{𝐬},\widehat{𝐭},\widehat{𝐮})`$ form a right-handed unit triad. The vertical, $`\widehat{𝐳}`$, is then related by

$$\widehat{𝐳}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐭}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐮},$$
(80)
where $`\alpha _0`$ is the angle of inclination of the wheel to the horizontal in steady motion. The triad $`(\widehat{𝐬},\widehat{𝐭},\widehat{𝐮})`$ rotates about the $`\widehat{𝐳}`$-axis with angular velocity $`\dot{\varphi }`$, so that

$$\frac{d\widehat{𝐬}}{dt}=\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐳}\times \widehat{𝐬}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐭}+\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐮},$$
(81)
$$\frac{d\widehat{𝐭}}{dt}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐬},$$
(82)
and

$$\frac{d\widehat{𝐮}}{dt}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐬}.$$
(83)
We now consider small departures from steady motion. The $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$-axis deviates slightly from the $`\widehat{𝐮}`$-axis according to

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}=ϵ_s\widehat{𝐬}+ϵ_t\widehat{𝐭}+\widehat{𝐮},\left|ϵ_s\right|,\left|ϵ_t\right|1.$$
(84)
The $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$-axis departs slightly from the $`t`$-axis, but to the first approximation it remains in a vertical plane, i.e., the $`t`$-$`u`$ plane. Then we have

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}=\widehat{𝐬}ϵ_s\widehat{𝐮},\text{and}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\widehat{𝐭}ϵ_t\widehat{𝐮}.$$
(85)
With the above definitions the signs of angles $`\alpha `$ and $`ϵ_t`$ are opposite:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =ϵ_t,\dot{\alpha }=\dot{ϵ}_t.$$
(86)
To first approximation the component $`\omega _1`$ of the angular velocity of the wheel about its axis remains $`\omega _1=(r^{}/a)\dot{\varphi }`$. Then

$$\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}=(\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0+\dot{ϵ}_sϵ_t\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\widehat{𝐬}(ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\dot{ϵ}_t)\widehat{𝐭}+ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐮},$$
(87)
$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}=(ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\dot{ϵ}_t)\widehat{𝐬}(\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0+\dot{ϵ}_sϵ_t\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\widehat{𝐭}+ϵ_t\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐮},$$
(88)
so that

$`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}}`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`[(r^{}/a+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }\dot{ϵ}_t]\widehat{𝐬}`$
$`[\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\dot{ϵ}_s(r^{}/a+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_t\dot{\varphi }]\widehat{𝐭}`$
$`+(r^{}/a+ϵ_t\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0)\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐮},`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐋}{ma}}`$ $`=`$ $`2ka\omega _1\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+ka\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}}{dt}}`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`k[(2r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }a\dot{ϵ}_t]\widehat{𝐬}`$
$`k[a\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0a\dot{ϵ}_s(2r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_t\dot{\varphi }]\widehat{𝐭}`$
$`+k(2r^{}+aϵ_t\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0)\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐮}.`$
Then to the first approximation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ma}}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐋}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`k[(2r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _02(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\dot{ϵ}_s\dot{\varphi })`$ (91)
$`(2r^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0+a\mathrm{cos}2\alpha _0)ϵ_t\dot{\varphi }^2+a\ddot{ϵ}_t]\widehat{𝐬}`$
$`k[a\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0+(2r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0a\ddot{ϵ}_s2(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\dot{ϵ}_t\dot{\varphi })]\widehat{𝐭}`$
$`+k[2r^{}\ddot{\varphi }+2\dot{r}^{}\dot{\varphi }+(2r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0]\widehat{𝐮}.`$
Unlike the case of vertical orbits, for horizontal orbits the factor $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ has no zeroeth-order component and we neglect terms like $`ϵ\ddot{\varphi }`$.

Similarly

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`a\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \stackrel{}{\omega }=a(\widehat{𝐭}ϵ_t\widehat{𝐮})\times \stackrel{}{\omega }`$ (92)
$`=`$ $`r^{}\dot{\varphi }\widehat{s}[(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }a\dot{ϵ}_t]\widehat{𝐮},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`[r^{}\ddot{\varphi }+\dot{r}^{}\dot{\varphi }+(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0a\dot{ϵ}_t\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0]\widehat{𝐬}`$ (93)
$`r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐭}+[r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\dot{ϵ}_s\dot{\varphi }+a\ddot{ϵ}_t]\widehat{𝐮},`$
and

$`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{𝐭}ϵ_t\widehat{𝐮})\times {\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}}{dt^2}}`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`[r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\dot{ϵ}_s\dot{\varphi }r^{}ϵ_t\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0+a\ddot{ϵ}_t]\widehat{𝐬}`$
$`[r^{}\ddot{\varphi }+\dot{r}^{}\dot{\varphi }+(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha )ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0a\dot{ϵ}_t\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0]\widehat{𝐮}.`$
We also need

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \widehat{𝐳}=(\widehat{𝐭}ϵ_t\widehat{𝐮})\times (\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐭}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0\widehat{𝐮})=(\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0+ϵ_t\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0)\widehat{𝐬}.$$
(95)
The $`s`$, and $`t`$ and $`u`$ components of the equation of motion (9) are

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`[(2k+1)r^{}+ka\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0]\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0g\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0(2k+1)(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0]\dot{ϵ}_s\dot{\varphi }`$ (96)
$`[(2k+1)r^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0+ka\mathrm{cos}2\alpha _0]ϵ_t\dot{\varphi }^2gϵ_t\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0+(k+1)a\ddot{ϵ}_t,`$
$$0=ka\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0+k(2r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0ka\ddot{ϵ}_s2k(r^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\dot{ϵ}_t\dot{\varphi },$$
(97)
and

$$0=(2k+1)(r^{}\ddot{\varphi }+\dot{r}^{}\dot{\varphi })+[(2k+1)r^{}+(k+1)a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0]ϵ_s\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0a\dot{ϵ}_t\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0.$$
(98)
The leading terms of these three equations are just eqs. (30)-(32) for $`\beta =0`$. Therefore we can write $`\dot{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Omega }+\dot{\delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity of the steady horizontal orbit and $`\delta `$ is a small correction.

Although the derivative of $`r^{}`$,

$$\dot{r}^{}=r\dot{\theta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _0+a\dot{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0=r\dot{\theta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _0a\dot{ϵ}_t\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0,$$
(99)
appears only in eq. (98), in general the perturbation $`\dot{\theta }`$ is not decoupled from $`ϵ_s`$ and $`ϵ_t`$ as was the case for vertical orbits. Thus far, we have found a way to proceed only in somewhat special cases in which the $`\theta `$ perturbation can be ignored, as described in secs. 2.3.3 and 2.3.4.

#### 2.3.3 Orbits Near the Equator

It appears possible to carry the analysis forward for the special case $`\theta _0=\pi /2`$, the orbit on the equator of the sphere. This case is, however, of interest.

Assuming $`\theta _0=\pi /2`$ the equations of motion (96-98) then provide three relations among the three perturbations $`\delta `$, $`ϵ_s`$ and $`ϵ_t`$. For this we consider only the first-order terms, noting that $`\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2+2\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{\delta }`$ and

$$r^{}=r\mathrm{sin}\theta a\mathrm{cos}\alpha r_0^{}+r\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta _0+a\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha \mathrm{sin}\alpha _0=r_0^{}aϵ_t\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0,$$
(100)
where $`r_0=ra\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0`$ for $`\theta _0=\pi /2`$, recalling eq. (86). Also, from the form of eqs. (96-98) we infer that if the perturbations are oscillatory then $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ_s`$ have the same phase which is $`90^{}`$ from that of $`ϵ_t`$. Therefore we seek solutions of the form

$$\delta =\delta \mathrm{sin}\omega t,ϵ_s=ϵ_s\mathrm{sin}\omega t,\text{and}ϵ_t=ϵ_t\mathrm{cos}\omega t,$$
(101)
where $`\omega `$ is the frequency of oscillation. The first-order terms of the differential equations (96-98) then yield the algebraic relations

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0[(2k+1)r_0^{}+ka\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0]\omega \delta \mathrm{\Omega }(2k+1)(r_0^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\omega ϵ_s`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Omega }^2[(2k+1)r_0^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0+(k+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0)a]g\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0+(k+1)a\omega ^2\}ϵ_t,`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`ka\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0\omega ^2\delta +[k\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0(2r_0^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)+ka\omega ^2]ϵ_s+2k\mathrm{\Omega }(r_0^{}+a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0)\omega ϵ_t,`$ (102)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`(2k+1)r_0^{}\omega ^2\delta +\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0[(2k+1)r_0^{}+(k+1)a\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0]ϵ_s+2(k+1)\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0a\omega ϵ_t.`$
These equations have the form

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}A_{11}\omega \delta & +& A_{12}\omega ϵ_s& +& (A_{13}+B_{13}\omega ^2)ϵ_t& =& 0\\ A_{21}\omega ^2\delta & +& (A_{22}+B_{22}\omega ^2)ϵ_s& +& A_{23}\omega ϵ_t& =& 0\\ A_{31}\omega ^2\delta & +& A_{32}ϵ_s& +& A_{33}\omega ϵ_t& =& 0\end{array}$$
(103)
To have consistency the determinant of the coefficient matrix must vanish, which leads quickly to the quadratic equation

$$A\omega ^4B\omega ^2C=0,$$
(104)
where

$$A=B_{13}B_{22}A_{31},$$
(105)
$$B=A_{11}B_{22}A_{33}+A_{12}A_{23}A_{31}+B_{13}A_{21}A_{32}A_{13}B_{22}A_{31}B_{13}A_{22}A_{31}A_{12}A_{21}A_{33},$$
(106)
and

$$C=A_{11}A_{22}A_{33}+A_{13}A_{21}A_{32}A_{13}A_{22}A_{31}A_{11}A_{23}A_{32}.$$
(107)
From numerical evaluation it appears that $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ are all positive for angular velocities $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that obey eq. (40). That is, all steady orbits at the equator of the sphere are stable. There is both a fast and slow oscillation about steady motion for these orbits, an effect familiar from nutations of a symmetric top.

#### 2.3.4 Small Wheel Inside a Large Sphere

The analysis can also be carried further in the approximation that the radius $`a`$ of the wheel is much less than the radius $`r`$ of the fixed sphere. In this case the perturbation in angle $`\theta `$ of the orbit is of higher order than the perturbations in azimuth $`\varphi `$ and in the angles $`ϵ_s`$ and $`ϵ_t`$ related to the axes of the wheel. A solution describing the three first-order perturbations can then be obtained.

For the greatest simplification we also require that

$$ar_0^{}r\mathrm{sin}\theta _0.$$
(108)
Thus we restrict our attention to orbits significantly different from the special cases of motion near the poles of the fixed sphere.

In the present approximation the first-order terms of the perturbed equations of motion (96-98) are

$$2\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{\delta }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0=\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{ϵ}_s+\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0+\frac{g\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0}{(2k+1)r_0^{}}\right)ϵ_t,$$
(109)
$$ϵ_s=\frac{\dot{ϵ}_t}{\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0},$$
(110)
and

$$\ddot{\delta }=ϵ_s\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0.$$
(111)
Inserting (110) into (111) we can integrate the latter to find

$$\dot{\delta }=\mathrm{\Omega }ϵ_t.$$
(112)
Using this and the derivative of (110) in (109) we find that $`ϵ_t`$ obeys

$$\ddot{ϵ}_t+\left[\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0(\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0+2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0)+\frac{g\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}{(2k+1)r_0^{}}\right]ϵ_t=0.$$
(113)
The the frequency $`\omega `$ of the perturbations is given by

$$\omega ^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0(\mathrm{cos}\alpha _0+2\mathrm{sin}\alpha _0)+\frac{g\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _0}{(2k+1)r_0^{}}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{tan}\alpha _0(1+\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _0),$$
(114)
using eqs. (40) and (108).

Thus all orbits for small wheels are stable if condition (108) holds. We conjecture that orbits for large wheels are also stable if (108) is satisfied.

For steady orbits that lie very near the poles, i.e., those that have r0

<

a

<

subscriptsuperscript𝑟0𝑎r^{\prime}_{0}\mathrel{\vbox{\kern 0.0pt\hbox{$<$} \kern 0.0pt\hbox{$\sim$} }}a, we conjecture that the motion is stable only for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ greater than some minimum value. For a wheel spinning about its axis on a horizontal plane the stability condition is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2>\frac{g}{(2k+1)a}.$$
(115)
See, for example, sec. 55 of Deimel . However, we have been unable to deduce the generalization of this constraint to include the dependence on $`r`$ and $`\theta _0`$ for small $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta _0`$.

## 3 Wheel Rolling Outside a Fixed Sphere

Equations (1)-(32) hold for a wheel rolling outside a sphere as well as inside when the geometric relation (3) is rewritten as

$$\theta <\alpha <\pi +\theta .$$
(116)
We expect no vertical orbits as the wheel will lose contact with the sphere at some point. To verify this, note that the condition $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =0`$ (from eq. (32)) implies that $`\alpha =\pi `$ when the wheel is outside the sphere. Then eqs. (34-36) indicate, for example, that if the wheel starts from rest at the top of the sphere it loses contact with the sphere when

$$\mathrm{cos}\varphi =\frac{2}{3+2k}.$$
(117)
The result for a particle sliding on a sphere ($`k=0`$) is well known.

For horizontal orbits, eqs. (40-45) are still valid, but the condition that friction have an outward component is now

$$r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2<g\mathrm{cot}\theta ,$$
(118)
and hence

$$\mathrm{cot}\alpha <(2k+1+k(a/r^{})\mathrm{cos}\alpha )\mathrm{cot}\theta .$$
(119)
Equation (40) can be satisfied for $`\alpha <\pi /2`$ so long at the radius of the wheel is small enough that $`(2k+1)r^{}+ka\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ is positive. We must have $`\theta <\pi /2`$ to have $`\alpha <\pi /2`$ since $`\alpha >\theta `$, so horizontal orbits exist on the upper hemisphere. A particular solution is $`\alpha =\pi /2`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$; this is clearly unstable.

There is a class of orbits with $`\theta <\pi /2`$ and $`\alpha `$ very near $`\pi +\theta `$ that satisfy both eqs. (40) and (119). These also appear to be unstable.

The stability analysis of the preceding section holds formally for wheels outside spheres, but the restriction there to the case of $`\theta =90^{}`$ provides no insight into the present case.

## 4 Sphere Rolling Inside a Fixed Sphere

The case of a sphere rolling on horizontal orbits inside a fixed sphere has been treated by Milne . For completeness, we give an analysis for orbits of arbitrary inclination to compare and contrast with the case of a wheel.

Again the axis normal to the orbit is called $`\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$, which makes angle $`\beta `$ to the vertical $`\widehat{𝐳}`$. The polar angle of the orbit about $`\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$ is $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ is the azimuth of the point of contact between the two spheres. The radius of the fixed sphere is $`r`$.

The diameter of the rolling sphere that passes through the point of contact must always be normal to the fixed sphere. That is, the “bank” angle of the rolling sphere is always $`\theta \pi /2`$ with respect to the plane of the orbit.

The rolling sphere has radius $`a`$, mass $`m`$ and moment of inertia $`kma^2`$ about any diameter. The angular momentum is, of course,

$$𝐋_{\mathrm{cm}}=kma^2\stackrel{}{\omega },$$
(120)
where $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ is the angular velocity of the rolling sphere.

We again introduce a right-handed triad of unit vectors ($`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$) centered on the rolling sphere. For consistency with the notation used for the wheel, axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ is directed towards the point of contact, axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ is parallel to the plane of the orbit, and axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is in the $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$-$`\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$ plane, as shown in Fig. 8. In general, none of these vectors are body vectors for the rolling sphere. The center of mass of the rolling sphere lies on the line joining the center of the fixed sphere to the point of contact, and so

$$𝐫_{\mathrm{cm}}=(ra)\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}r^{}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(121)
Equations (7-12) that govern the motion and describe the rolling constraint hold for the sphere as well as the wheel. Using eqs. (120) and (121) we can write eq. (9) as

$$ka\frac{d\stackrel{}{\omega }}{dt}=g\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \widehat{𝐳}+r^{}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \frac{d^2\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt^2}.$$
(122)
We seek an additional expression for the angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ of the rolling sphere, but we cannot use eq. (13) since we have not identified a body axis in the sphere. However, with eq. (121) the rolling constraint (12) can be written

$$\stackrel{}{\omega }=\frac{r^{}}{a}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt}+\omega _3\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(123)
We can now see that $`\omega _3=\stackrel{}{\omega }\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ is a constant by noting that $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}d\stackrel{}{\omega }/dt=0`$ from eq. (122), and also $`\stackrel{}{\omega }d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}/dt=0`$ from eq. (123). The freedom to chose the constant angular velocity $`\omega _3`$ for a rolling sphere permits stable orbits above the equator of the fixed sphere, just as the freedom to adjust the bank angle $`\alpha `$ allows such orbits for a wheel.

Taking the derivative of eq. (123) we find

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{\omega }}{dt}=\frac{r^{}}{a}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \frac{d^2\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt^2}+\omega _3\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt},$$
(124)
so the equation of motion (122) can be written

$$(k+1)r^{}\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \frac{d^2\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt^2}ka\omega _3\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt}=g\widehat{𝐳}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(125)
Milne notes that this equation is identical to that for a symmetric top with one point fixed , and so the usual extensive analysis of nutations about the stable orbits follows if desired.

We again restrict ourselves to circular orbits, for which the angular velocity of the center of mass, and of $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ is $`\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐳}^{}`$ where the $`z^{}`$-axis is fixed. Then with

$$\widehat{𝐳}^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(126)
we have

$$\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt}=\dot{\varphi }\widehat{𝐳}^{}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}},$$
(127)
$$\frac{d^2\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt^2}=\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{𝐳}^{}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}+\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}=\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}+\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(128)
and hence,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}\times \frac{d^2\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{dt^2}=\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}.$$
(129)
With these the equation of motion (125) reads

$$(k+1)r^{}\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+[(k+1)r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}\theta +ka\omega _3\dot{\varphi }]\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}=g\widehat{𝐳}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}.$$
(130)
We can use eq. (29) for $`\widehat{𝐳}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ if we substitute $`\alpha =\theta \pi /2`$ for the rolling sphere:

$$\widehat{𝐳}\times \widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}=\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟐}}.$$
(131)
The components of the equation of motion are then

$$(k+1)r^{}\ddot{\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta =\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(132)
$$[(k+1)r^{}\dot{\varphi }^2\mathrm{cos}\theta +ka\omega _3\dot{\varphi }]\mathrm{sin}\theta =g\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi g\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\beta .$$
(133)
The two equations of motion are not consistent in general. To see this, take the derivative of eq. (133) and substitute $`\ddot{\varphi }`$ from eq. (132):

$$ka\omega _3\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi =3(k+1)r^{}\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi .$$
(134)
While this is certainly true for $`\beta =0`$ (horizontal orbits), for nonzero $`\beta `$ we must have $`\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ constant since $`\omega _3`$ is constant. Equation (134) is satisfied for $`\theta =\pi /2`$ (great circles), but for arbitrary $`\theta `$ we would need $`\dot{\varphi }`$ constant which is inconsistent with eq. (132). Further, on a great circle eq. (133) becomes $`ka\omega _3\dot{\varphi }=g\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. This is inconsistent with eq. (132) unless $`\beta =\pi /2`$ (vertical great circles) and $`\omega _3=0.`$

In summary, the only possible closed orbits for a sphere rolling within a fixed sphere are horizontal circles and vertical great circles.

We remark further only on the horizontal orbits. For these $`\dot{\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is constant according to eq. (132). Equation (133) then yields a quadratic equation for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$(k+1)r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}\theta +ka\omega _3\mathrm{\Omega }+g=0,$$
(135)
so that there are orbits with real values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ provided

$$(ka\omega _3)^24(k+1)gr^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(136)
This is satisfied for orbits below the equator ($`\theta >\pi /2`$) for any value of the “spin” $`\omega _3`$ of the sphere (including zero), but places a lower limit on $`\left|\omega _3\right|`$ for orbits above the equator. For the orbit on the equator we must have $`\mathrm{\Omega }=g/(ka\omega _3)`$ so a nonzero $`\omega _3`$ is required here as well.

The contact force $`𝐅`$ is given by

$$𝐅/m=(g+r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{sin}\theta \widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}(r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta g\mathrm{cos}\theta )\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}},$$
(137)
using eqs. (7) and (134). For the rolling sphere to remain in contact with the fixed sphere there must be a positive component of $`𝐅`$ pointing toward the center of the fixed sphere. Since axis $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ is radial outward from the fixed sphere, we require that $`F_3`$ be negative, and hence

$$r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta >g\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
(138)
This is always satisfied for orbits below the equator. For orbits well above the equator this requires a larger value of $`\left|\omega _3\right|`$ than does eq. (136). To see this, suppose $`\omega _3`$ is exactly at the minimum value allowed by eq. (136), which implies that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=ka\omega _3/(2(k+1)r^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. Then eq. (138) requires that $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta >k+1`$. So for $`k=2/5`$ and at angles $`\theta <50^{}`$ larger values of $`\left|\omega _3\right|`$ are needed to satisfy eq. (136) than to satisfy eq. (136). However, there are horizontal orbits at any $`\theta >0`$ for $`\left|\omega _3\right|`$ large enough.

## 5 Sphere Rolling Outside a Fixed Sphere

This case has also been treated by Milne . A popular example is spinning a basketball on one’s fingertip.

Equations eq. (135) and (136) hold with the substitution that $`r^{}=r+a`$. The condition on the contact force becomes

$$r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta <g\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(139)
which can only be satisfied for $`\theta <\pi /2`$. While eq. (136) requires a large spin $`\left|\omega _3\right|`$, if it is too large eq. (139) can no longer be satisfied in view of the relation (135). For any case in which the orbit exists a perturbation analysis shows that the motion is stable against small nutations .


text:
# The Impact of Adaptive Optics on Star Formation Research

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Since about 1995, when adaptive optics (AO) was broadly introduced into astronomical imaging techniques, the field of star formation has seen revolutionary progress. Why is that? The first step towards the new age had nothing to do with AO, it was the first direct imaging of circumstellar disks provided by the HST (see, e.g McCaughrean et al.). Before the installation of the NICMOS instrument, however, HST had the disadvantage of being restricted to visual wavelengths. Star formation, on the other hand, usually takes place in molecular clouds. The radiation which carries information to astronomers on earth must pass through these clouds. The dust particles inside the clouds absorb most of the visual radiation, but let the infrared (IR) part and longer wavelengths pass almost untouched. Additionally, dusty structures in the immediate environment of young stellar objects (YSOs) provide IR excess emission by absorbing shorter wavelengths and re-radiating the energy in the IR. While this effectively shuts off observations of the act of star formation in the visual (and thus by the old HST), it matches excellently with the facilities provided by AO systems. Current astronomical AO systems111At least those available to the general, civilian community, as well as the very first ones 5 years ago, usually use the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum to analyse the incoming wavefront, and provide the IR part to the science instrument. This has several reasons: First of all, it is much easier to achieve plain wavefronts at longer wavelengths: The longer the wavelength, the smaller the number of required actuators and the longer the atmospheric coherence timescale. On the other hand, using a dichroic beam splitter is more efficient than a “normal” beam splitter. AO systems with IR wavefront sensors (ADONIS at ESO now has one) or systems providing AO in the visible (like e.g. the starfire optical range), have to share photons between the wavefront analyser and the science instrument. This always imposes a further limitation on the limiting magnitudes of these systems. All these factors make AO systems ideal for observing star formation regions, apart from the fact that on large telescopes they can easily beat the resolution provided by HST. An example comparison of a typical star forming region is given in Figure 1.

Despite the HST delivering the first direct images of circumstellar disks, the detailed examination of such objects was performed later with AO systems. AO supported IR observations yielded information on the grain size distribution and the temperature variations inside such disks. Polarimetric studies of such disks have also been conducted. AO observations have also contributed to other fields of star formation research, like the search for brown dwarfs (Important to fill the gap between theories of star and planet formation), the identification of initial mass functions in young clusters, the phenomena of massive star formation and problems connected with binarity or multiplicity of recently formed stellar systems.

In this paper, we will presented selected results obtained by a single AO system, ALFA (Adaptive Optics with a Laser for Astronomy, which is run by the two Max Planck Institutes for Astronomy and extraterrestrial physics in Heidelberg and Garching, Germany. We concentrate on fields of star formation research which are examined at the two institutes. The results we present were obtained during the ALFA science demonstration run 1999, most of them in September of that year. The intention is to give a short introduction to the fields we are working in and to present current results obtained with the ALFA system. All data presented are still under analysis and will be thoroughly presented in forthcoming papers. To provide opportunities to judge the “real life” performance of the AO system, all characteristic data (like Strehl ratios, FWHMs etc.) are given for the finally reduced data, but without any applied post-reduction techniques like deconvolution or PSF-fitting.

## 2 Determining the IMF of NGC 6611

The initial mass functions (IMFs) of young clusters contain a wealth of hints towards the influence of the environment on the formation mechanisms of stars. Particularly interesting is the interaction between massive stars and their winds and ionising radiation, and low-mass stars forming in the same molecular cloud. Since the general scenario of low-mass star formation from a collapsing cloud core via a disk/outflow scenario to a protostar is more or less known, many parameters can be derived from the mass distribution. Among the questions in this context are: Does the slope of the IMF vary on small scales? Do low-mass stars in a starburst event form together with the more massive stars or at different times? It might also not be to daring to ask if low-mass stars form at all in an environment of violent, young massive stars.

### 2.1 Observations and Data Reduction

NGC 6611 was observed during the ALFA science demonstration run in September 1999. The seeing conditions were median with a $`J`$-band seeing of 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$9. Locked on the reference star of $`m_V=9.0`$ the AO was running at a speed of 75 Hz using 18 subapertures and correcting 18 Modes222We were using so-called “sensor modes”, the lower ones of which are identical to the corresponding Kahunen-Loeve modes. The upper sensor modes are linear combinations of higher KL-modes to make use of more statistically independent information than contained in the original KL-modes. Albeit, we were far from the diffraction limit (see Fig. 2). Total integration times were 5 minutes in each of the filters $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`K^{}`$. Data reduction followed standard IR procedures, using a mosaic pattern to acquire a sky frame and subtracting that before flatfielding. Bad pixels were mostly removed during mosaic combination, few remaining bad pixels in non-overlapping regions were removed by filtering. Photometric calibration was performed by observing the standard AS37. For remarks on image quality see the caption of Fig. 2

### 2.2 Determination of the IMF

The whole of NGC 6611 was thoroughly examined by Hillenbrand et al. (1993). They give a mean age for the cluster of 2($`\pm 1`$)$`\times 10^6`$ yrs and a mean extinction of 3.2 mag towards the cluster region. Relying on their age determination, we can de-redden the stars via the two-colour and the colour-magnitude diagrams. Thus we will be able to extend the IMF towards lower mass stars than Hillenbrand et al. Photometry was done using the IDL-implementation of DAOPHOT. The extinction towards the cluster can of course vary across the cluster and especially towards the centre - which we observed. Fig. 2 shows a distinct lack of stars close to the central WFS-star. This indication of a higher extinction towards the centre than towards the outer parts is also accompanied by indications for high reddening towards the centre (up to $`A_V=15`$ mag). The process of de-reddening the sources and constructing the IMF is currently under way, the result will be published in a forthcoming paper.

## 3 Identifying the ionising source of G11.11-0.40

Ultracompact Hii regions (UCHiis) are small (0.15 pc), ionised areas surrounding newly born massive stars (m $``$ 8 M). Deeply embedded in the natal molecular clouds of these stars, UCHiis are invisible at optical wavelengths but appear bright from the near infrared to the radio domain. UCHiis appear in many different morphologies and one of the key questions is why they are so many of them: Comparing the lifetime which theory predicts for the expansion of an ionised shell around a star to the lifetime of O-type stars, one computes a predicted number of UCHIIs which is at least a factor of ten lower than the observed number. Among the possibilities to answer this question and to distinguish between the many models that describe UCHIIs, is the clear identification of the ionising sources of these objects.

### 3.1 Observations and Data Reduction

G11.11 was observed during the same night as NGC 6611. Although external conditions were practically the same and the WFS-star 2 mag fainter than that of NGC 6611, the AO system was much better adapted to the seeing this time: In the image centre, the stellar PSF is practically diffraction limited in $`K^{}`$ and $`H`$ and Strehl numbers reach 28% even after the mosaic combination. Observational parameters and techniques were also identical to NGC 6611. Total integration times were 5 minutes in each band in this case. The resulting $`JHK^{}`$ colour composite image can be seen in Fig. 3

### 3.2 The Ionising Source

Figure 3 shows that clearly three rather red point sources333At our resolution of 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$4 are located close to the ionised region denoted by the contours of the 3.6 cm free-free emission. They appear to lie on the northern rim of a dark cloud which clearly blocks background stars to the south. To identify the ionizing source of G11, photometry was performed on the $`H`$ and $`K`$ frames of G11. the sources inside the ionised region (see VLA contours in Fig. 3) are not detected in $`J`$. For photometry, an IDL adaption of DAOPHOT was used. The brightest source inside the ionised region was used as PSF reference for DAOPHOT. Since no signs for resolved aditional emission was detected from this source, this step seemed justified. It also guarantees optimum adaption to the local shape of the PSF, which is slightly elongated due to tip-tilt anisoplanatism. The results of the photometry are shown in the colour-magnitude diagramme in Fig. 4. This figure shows the zero age main sequence (ZAMS) in red plus some pre-main sequence evolutionary tracks by D’Antona & Mazitelli. For the sources inside G11, a distance module of 13.58, corresponding to a distance of 5.2 kpc was applied to the $`K^{}`$-magnitude.

The 8 sources inside or closest to the ionised region are shown here. From a Br$`\gamma `$ map observed with IRAC2b on ESO’s 2.2 m telescope on La Silla (Chile), we derived the extintion towards the ionised region via comparison to the observed free-free flux at 2 cm. This procedure yielded an extinction of 3.1 mag at the wavelength of Br$`\gamma `$ (2.166 $`\mu `$m). This extinction is assumed to be constant across the $`K`$-band. When applying the corresponding de-reddening vector to the brightest source inside G11, we find the star located just short of the position of an O5 star in Fig. 4.

When calculating the Emission measure from the 2 cm emission, we get 0.7$`\times 10^6`$ pc cm-6, corresponding to an electron density of 4.2$`\times 10^3`$ cm-3. According to Kurtz et al., this request a minimum 1047.7 Lyman continuum photons per second from the ionizing source. Models by Panagia indicate that this number can be delivered by a single star around spectral type O9. Of course one has to be careful: On the one hand, it is generally unknown how much the UV photon flux is influenced by the presumed youth of the star. On the other hand, dust inside the region may absorb Lyman continuum photons and thus require a star of earlier spectral type than O9. Such dust would, if located between the Br$`\gamma `$ emitting region and the star itself also explain the additional reddening between the de-reddened location of the ionizing source in Fig. 4 and the actual location of an O5 star.

Information on the other sources, on dust masses/densities and the IMF close to G11 will be given in Henning et al.

## 4 Spectroscopy of the young binary system T Tau

The AO system ALFA can be operated in combination with the integral field sepctrometer 3D. This combination was used in September 1999 to observe the young binary system T Tau. ALFA delivered a resolution of 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$14. Spectra were extracted from the central 2$`\times `$2 pixels of each PSF. The spectral resolution of 3D is 1000 in this mode, the spectral range extends across 0.4 $`\mu `$m and thus across the complete $`H`$ and $`K`$-bands.

### 4.1 The Spectra

A thourough introduction into the T Tau system can be found e.g. in . Resulting spectra can be seen in figures 7 and 8. The primary or northern component (N) has its maximum shortwards of the $`H`$-band and shows a falling spectral energy distribution (SED) across the $`K`$-band. These are the first clearly separated spectra of both T Tau components. The behaviour of the secondary or southern component (S) is exactly the opposite. Its SED is steeply rising across both bands. Nevertheless, the presence of pronounced Br$`\gamma `$ lines indicates, that both objects are actively acreting, classical T Tauri stars.

As for the secondary, line emission from higher Bracket transitions can be seen in the $`H`$-band data. These data are currently undergoing a thorough analysis and will be presented in a forthcoming paper

## 5 The Impact

We have presented data obtained during the Science demonstration programme of the ALFA system in 1999. These deal with various aspects of star formation research. The analysis of these data currently under way would have been impossible, had they been taken under seeing conditions (1′′) at the time of the observations. The data quality reaches from that of corresponding to data taken at very good telesopes at very good sites (remember, we only have a 3.5 m telescope on an average mountain) to better than HST (See the spectroscopic data of T Tau). Clearly, the picture of star formation will be complemented by the detailed studies of IMFs in clusters and UCHsc iis, by the studies of ionisation mechanisms, and by highly detailed studies of individual systems like T Tau. From our results, it becomes clear that any study relying on observational results of a quality inferior to ours must lead to misleading or wrong results. Binary misidentifications, missing photometric completeness due to low sensitivity when observing with low resolutions, misinterpretations of sprectal data taken in close environments of stars, all these errors are inevitable consequences of observing at natural seeing conditions of 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$7 or worse.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the rest of the ALFA and 3D teams for their co-operation during the observing runs.