I am trying to work out a "helix in a helix" mathematically. Intuitively I think of this as a steel cable, which is made up of a number of smaller steel cables all bound together in spiral. If I wanted to find the length of one of the individual cables, it would be bound in a spiral in the smaller cable and then those cables bound in a larger spiral cable. I know that if I wanted to do a helix whose ends meet, I would use the parametrization $$((a+b\cos(\omega{t}))\cos{t},(a+b\cos(\omega{t})\sin{t},b\sin(\omega{t})),t=0..2\pi$$ I've been trying to map out in my head how to, instead of curling the helix, making the helix travel in the path of a helix. I've achieved it partially with $$((a+b\cos(\omega{t}))\cos{t},(a+b\cos(\omega{t})\sin{t},t),t=0..\infty$$ But this doesn't keep the smaller helix in tact, and turns it into a sine wave helix. I've also tried $$((a+b\cos(\omega{t}))\cos{t},(a+b\cos(\omega{t})\sin{t},tb\sin(\omega{t})),t=0..2\pi$$ But this gives me sort of a nautilus shape where the helix curls into itself and increases in size and curls around into itself. What am I missing?

EDIT: Also, what if we wanted to do this again, like a 'helix in a helix in a ... in a helix'?

  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure what you want. Are you looking for curve that wraps around the helix surface in this answer? Or would you like the "big helix" itself to wrap around a torus instead of a cylinder as it usually does? Or do you want both? I think I saved the Mathematica code I used to produce those images, so... $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 18 '13 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ close. I'm looking for a path along the surface of that helix. It's analogous to the helix along the path of a torus except instead of a torus it's another helix $\endgroup$ – Eleven-Eleven Aug 18 '13 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ I think I got it. Gimme a minute. I'll try with images first and then add formulas :-) $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 18 '13 at 15:56
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I was using Maple and i got close with the sine wave helix, but I'm just not sure how to procede... $\endgroup$ – Eleven-Eleven Aug 18 '13 at 15:57

As in an earlier answer I use the local frame along the helix to help parametrize the desired curve. From that answer I reuse: a parametrization for a helix along the $x$-axis $$ \vec{r}(t)=(ht,R\cos t, R\sin t). $$ Its tangent vector $$ \vec{t}=\frac{d\vec{r}(t)}{dt}=(h,-R\sin t,R\cos t). $$ Its normal vector $$ \vec{n}(t)= \frac{\frac{d\vec{t}}{dt}}{\left\Vert\frac{d\vec{t}}{dt}\right\Vert}=(0,-\cos t,-\sin t). $$ And it binormal vector $$ \vec{b}(t)=\frac1{\Vert\vec{t}\Vert}\vec{t}\times\vec{n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{R^2+h^2}}(R,h\sin t,-h\cos t). $$ This is, of course, orthogonal to both $\vec{t}$ and $\vec{n}$.

The tube around the helix (with radius $a$) then has a parametrization $$ S(t,u)=\vec{r}(t)+a\vec{n}(t)\cos u+ a\vec{b}(t)\sin u $$ with $t$ ranging over as many loops as you wish, and $u$ ranging over the interval $[0,2\pi]$.

To get a curve looping around the helix along that surface we simply set $u=kt$, where $k$ indicates the number of rotations around the tube per single rotation of the tube around the $x$-axis.

Here's the image of the resulting curve with $R=3$, $h=1$, $a=1$ and $k=12$. For clarity I included both the tube as well as the curve.

Helix on a helix

The parametrization of that thin "cable" on the tube surface is (with the above values for the constants) $$ \left\{\begin{array}{ccl} x&=&t+\frac{3\sin 12 t}{\sqrt{10}},\\ y&=&3\cos t-\cos t\cos 12t+\frac{\sin t\sin 12t}{\sqrt{10}},\\ z&=&3\sin t-\sin t\cos 12t-\frac{\cos t\sin 12t}{\sqrt{10}}. \end{array}\right. $$

  • $\begingroup$ Nice, now what does that look like algebraically? $\endgroup$ – Eleven-Eleven Aug 18 '13 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ @jyrki, that is perfect. You used the tangent, normal, and binormal vectors too which is what I'm teaching myself in Colley's vector calculus! Awesome. $\endgroup$ – Eleven-Eleven Aug 18 '13 at 16:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Christopher: Then it behooves me to warn you that in general you need to exercise a bit more care. You see that I didn't use the natural parameter here. That's why I had to normalize the vectors carefully to get unit vectors. Here that didn't result in any distortions, because on a helix the arc length is a constant multiple of the parameter $t$. This is not always the case, and writing everything in terms of $s$ may be somewhat taxing. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 18 '13 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a generalization for more iterations of this process? I do want to play with this '2-helix' a bit before diving into 'n-helices' but is te process similar? $\endgroup$ – Eleven-Eleven Aug 18 '13 at 16:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In principle, yes, the same process should work. I just don't want to find the natural parameter of our latest curve :-). You may have seen that with some curves it is possible that the normal vector has a discontinuity (i.e. jumps from one side to the other) at the points where the radius of curvature goes to zero. It's been over 25 years since I last read about it, so I don't remember the terminology very precisely. Anyway, if that happens, you may need to make some more modifications. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 18 '13 at 17:00

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.