Moment of inertia about different axes

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying bodies with the same moment of inertia about various axes. Participants agree that no body has a uniform moment of inertia for all axes, while a solid sphere is cited as having the same moment of inertia for all axes passing through its center. A hemisphere is also mentioned, with clarification that its moment of inertia remains consistent along axes through its center and perpendicular to its plane surface. The square sheet is noted for having the same moment of inertia about any axis in its plane through its center, supported by the perpendicular axis theorem. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding mass distribution and symmetry in calculating moments of inertia.
spaghetti3451
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
31
I found this problem in a book and am trying to answer it by myself.

1. Can you think of a body that has the same moment of inertia for all possible axes? If so, give an example, and if not, explain why this is not possible.

Solution: I can't think of any example or disprove the hypothesis. So I am wondering how I can answer this part.


2. Can you think of a body that has the same moment of inertia for all axes passing through a certain point? If so, give an example and indicate where the point is located.

Solution: An example is a solid sphere, with the point located at its centre. What do you think?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1. I can't think of anybody having same moment inertia about any axis.
2. a). Sphere
b).Hemisphere also has same m.o.i about any axis passing through the centre of its plane surface.
C). Square sheet.
About any axis in its plane and through its centre.
 
1. reason why there's none: hint - moment of inertia depends on the distribution of mass about the axis.

2. sphere is useful - the important part is your reasoning.
[I would not have guessed the hemisphere one - any axis through the center of it's plane surface? Really? because I'd have thought an axis perpendicular to the surface would be different from an axis along it. Square sheet has an extra constraint besides "any axis through a point" though doesn't it?]
 
yes, m.o.i. Of hemisphere will be same along axis through the centre and the one perpendicular to it. If you want to find the m.o.i about the axis along the surface through its centre then you have to either see the symmetry or use the long integration method.
I have via done integration also and result comes out to be same.
For the square sheet, you can prove by perpendicular axis theoram.
(Not able to upload picture from mobile help)
 
Hmmm? I'm not doubting you - it's just not something I'd have guessed. Clearly I am now going to have to work it out since I also have not seen it in standard tables of moments of inertia. Well, it'll brush up my calculus and it doesn't look hard.

Time to hear from OP methinks.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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