Moment of Inertia of a body with linearly increasing density?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the moment of inertia of a thin wire bent into a circular loop with a linearly increasing density. The initial calculation incorrectly assumes the mass of the wire as M = ρL^3, which is inappropriate for a thin wire since its volume should not be treated as a cube. The correct approach requires using the line density and considering the geometry of the wire. The teacher's answer suggests the moment of inertia is 3ρL^3/8π², indicating a misunderstanding in the initial setup. Clarification on the definition of density and the wire's dimensions is essential for accurate calculations.
easwar2641993
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
A thin wire of length L and uniformly density ρ is bent into a circular loop with center at O.The moment of inertia of it about a tangential axis lying in the plane of loop is.
Ans : Mass M is not given,but ρ is given. So M=ρL3->(1) (L3 means L cube,no idea how to post it in that manner!). For a circular loop, we all know the formula for that condition is (3/2)MR square. Applying this in equation for equation (1) will give (3/2)ρL3 x (L square/4∏ square)
This will give 3ρL raised to 5 / 8∏ square.

But my teacher told the answer is 3ρL cube/8∏square.
This is not a home work.This is just a practice for me.
In this,where is my mistake?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The wire is thin, not a cube, its volume is not L3 (can be written as [noparse]L3[/noparse], but L^3 is fine, too. Or use LaTeX: L^3[/ite[/color]x] becomes L^3).<br /> I would expect that ρ is given as line density (kg/m), or the cross-section of the wire has to be given.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top