How do you find the moment of inertia of a polygon?

epaik91
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm working on an engine right now, and I'm having trouble calculating the moment of inertia for a polygon. Is there any way to easily do this without decomposing the polygon into triangles?

edit: I've looked at the wikipedia page with examples on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_moments_of_inertia) and I'm having trouble understanding the last example, which seems to be what I need.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
That last example is, indeed, the moment of inertia formula for the polygon, and is the final result of having decomposed the polygon into triangles.

I derived it once for myself, I'm sorry that I'm not inm the mood to do it once again.
 
Any particular reason your polygons are not triangles in the first place? Polygons of 4 or more sides complicates everything.

4 or more sides means your polygon does not need to have all vertexes on the same plane, which complicates shading.

Building a BSP-tree gets more complicated the more sides your polygons have (you will end up splitting a whole lot).

and so on.

k
 
kenewbie said:
Any particular reason your polygons are not triangles in the first place? Polygons of 4 or more sides complicates everything.

4 or more sides means your polygon does not need to have all vertexes on the same plane, which complicates shading.

Building a BSP-tree gets more complicated the more sides your polygons have (you will end up splitting a whole lot).

and so on.

k

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm doing everything on a 2D plane. I'm not sure what you mean by stating that the vertexes won't be on the same plane, but I think you may be confusing 3D graphics with my problem (shading?). In addition, finding a way to solve this problem for convex polygons will achieve what I'm going for, which is why I'm avoiding BSP-trees or any other kind of decomposition of the polygon.
 
Yep, I was thinking 3D, sorry.

k
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top