Is Calculating Moment of Inertia for a Disc with (x+dx)^2 Valid?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of the moment of inertia (MI) for a disc, specifically questioning the validity of using (x+dx)^2 in the calculations. Participants clarify that while it is acceptable to multiply the mass of a thin ring by its radius squared to find its moment of inertia, the challenge lies in accurately calculating the MI for the entire disc. The confusion stems from whether to consider the points in between and the implications of using dx in the expansion. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of how to apply the formula across different sections of the disc. Accurate calculation methods are essential for determining the moment of inertia effectively.
Arup Biswas
Messages
34
Reaction score
2
In the picture the question marked spot is confusing me. Should the MI be calculated in this ugly way? That we do not consider the points in between and on dx! Why only x is taken as the distance? You may say take x+dx, resulting dx in the exapnsion and the dx from the mass to square and being negligible. But that too is not so simple. Can we write the whole mass as there is and just multiply it by (x+dx)^2. The definition does not say so. Please explain.
IMG_20180104_230544.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180104_230544.jpg
    IMG_20180104_230544.jpg
    44.7 KB · Views: 624
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not quite clear what you are asking.
Arup Biswas said:
Can we write the whole mass as there is
The whole mass of what?

Arup Biswas said:
and just multiply it by (x+dx)^2
Ah, I think you're saying: Can you take the mass of the thin ring and multiply it by its radius squared to get its moment of inertia. Sure. In fact, that's just what they are doing. But you want to do it in a way that you can calculate the moment of inertia of the entire disk or a non-infinitesimal ring.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top