About which axis the moment of inertia of A body is minimum

AI Thread Summary
The moment of inertia of a body is minimized when rotating about its center of mass, as this axis minimizes the average distance of mass elements from the axis. While the mass remains constant regardless of the rotation axis, the distribution of mass affects the moment of inertia due to the squared distance factor in the calculation. The parallel axis theorem explains that rotating about an axis not through the center of mass increases the average distance to mass elements, thus increasing the moment of inertia. Practical examples, such as rotating a baseball bat, illustrate how different axes of rotation require varying amounts of effort, with the minimum effort occurring at the center of mass. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately calculating moment of inertia in physical systems.
Amru123
Messages
13
Reaction score
2
I remember my teacher saying it to be the axis along the centre of mass but the centre of mass has all the mass concentrated in it and hence moment of inertia should increase as moment of inertia is proportional to mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Amru123 said:
the centre of mass has all the mass concentrated in it
I'm not sure what this is meant to mean. The mass of a body is the same whatever axis you rotate it about. Why would it change?

Did your teacher mention the parallel axis theorem? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem
 
Ibix said:
I'm not sure what this is meant to mean. The mass of a body is the same whatever axis you rotate it about. Why would it change?

Did your teacher mention the parallel axis theorem? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem
Yeah,he did mention.Centre of mass is where the all the mass is assumed to be concentrated.Just look up for it's definition.
 
You can treat a body as if it were a point particle of the same mass located at the centre of mass for some purposes. Not all, and rotation is not one if those purposes, since how hard something is to start rotating depends on the mass distribution.

The parallel axis theorem is the rigorous answer to your question - take a look at the derivation in the wiki link. Intuitively, the centre of mass is the place where the average distance to all the little elements of mass making up the body is minimised. If one tries to rotate about an axis that does not pass through the center of mass then the average distance to all the little bits of mass is increased. So the ##mr^2## is increased because the ##r^2## increase, not because the m changes. And the total ##mr^2## is just the moment of inertia.
 
Amru123 said:
I remember my teacher saying it to be the axis along the centre of mass but the centre of mass has all the mass concentrated in it and hence moment of inertia should increase as moment of inertia is proportional to mass?
Mass contributes to moment of inertia no matter where your axis is - but mass closer to the axis contributes less (it scales with the squared radius), so a lot of mass close to the axis leads to the smallest moment of inertia. Anyway, you cannot replace an object by a point-mass if you want to calculate its moment of inertia, as discussed in the previous post.
 
  • Like
Likes CWatters
One way to clarify the moment of inertia axes ( there are 3 ) is by way if example. Lay a baseball bat on the floor. Now turn the baseball bat around an (vertical) axis with the proviso that the vertical axis is through the center of mass. Next turn the baseball bat around a horizontal axis through the center of mass. The axis you picked will probably be one where the bat rotates in much the same way as the previous case. I takes approximately the same effort to turn the bat in both these cases.

Finally turn the bat through a third axis perpendicular to the first two, but this time turn the bat as though the bat were on a wood lathe. This time much less effort would be required to turn the bat at the same rate. This axis of turning on the wood lathe would be the minimum axis of inertia.
 
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