Calculating Moment of Inertia for Outstretched Arms: 1/3 vs 1/12 Formula

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the moment of inertia for outstretched arms using two formulas: I = 1/3ML² and I = 1/12ML². Participants argue that the moment of inertia should be calculated as 1/3ML² due to the axis of rotation being near the shoulder, while others support the use of 1/12ML² when treating the arms as a single continuous rod. The conversation highlights the importance of considering the axis of rotation and the application of the parallel axis theorem when modeling the arms as separate rods.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of moment of inertia concepts
  • Familiarity with the parallel axis theorem
  • Basic knowledge of rotational dynamics
  • Ability to apply formulas for rods in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the parallel axis theorem in complex models
  • Learn about the derivation of moment of inertia formulas for different shapes
  • Explore the implications of axis of rotation on moment of inertia calculations
  • Investigate the differences between continuous and discrete mass distributions
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and engineers interested in understanding rotational dynamics and the calculation of moment of inertia in various configurations.

Asad Raza
Messages
81
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Kindly see the screenshot attached below for the question.

Homework Equations


I=1/3ML^2
1/12ML^2

The Attempt at a Solution


In the solution to this question, the moment of inertia of the hands (when outstretched) is taken to be 1/12ML^2 (combined). I think that it should be 1/3ML^2 because the axis is near the shoulder. Also, wouldn't it make any difference if we are calculating the combined moment of the rods rather than calculating individually.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_89.jpg
    Screenshot_89.jpg
    30.7 KB · Views: 498
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends what you take as M and L. If you consider it as two end-pivoted rods I is 2*1/3ML2. If you consider it as one centre-pivoted rod of mass 2M and length 2L, I = 1/12*2M*(2L)2 =2/3ML2. As you are given the mass and length of the two outstretched arms together, you should use I = 1/12ml2
 
Asad Raza said:
In the solution to this question, the moment of inertia of the hands (when outstretched) is taken to be 1/12ML^2 (combined). I think that it should be 1/3ML^2 because the axis is near the shoulder.
In their simplified model they are considering the "arm and hand" rod to be a single rod passing through the axis of rotation. The rotation axis is definitely not at the shoulder! It passes vertically though the center of the body.

upload_2017-12-8_11-26-1.png


Also, wouldn't it make any difference if we are calculating the combined moment of the rods rather than calculating individually.
Moments of inertia sum algebraically, so no, if the rod is continuous.

What would make a difference is if you were to form a more complex model where each arm+had is considered as separate rod attached at the shoulders. The axis of rotation would still be through the center of the body, so you'd have to apply the parallel axis theorem to calculate the moment of inertia of the rods about an axis that is offset from the end of the rod.

upload_2017-12-8_11-35-14.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-12-8_11-26-1.png
    upload_2017-12-8_11-26-1.png
    12.2 KB · Views: 855
  • upload_2017-12-8_11-35-14.png
    upload_2017-12-8_11-35-14.png
    12.2 KB · Views: 661
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Asad Raza said:
1/12ML^2 (combined). I think that it should be 1/3ML^2
It's the same thing. Each arm (measured from the spine) is length L/2, mass m/2. Applying the 1/3 formula for a rod about its end point that gives 1/3(m/2)(L/2)2 = mL2/24 for each arm, and a total of mL2/12.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K