Moment of inertia for a rhombus

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the moment of inertia for a rhombus with given side length and mass, specifically about an axis parallel to the plane of the rhombus. Participants are examining the setup of integrals to determine the moment of inertia and questioning the correctness of the bounds and factors involved in the integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the setup of double integrals for calculating the moment of inertia, questioning the inclusion of a factor of two, and discussing the appropriate bounds for integration. There is also a focus on the need for angles in the context of the rhombus and how the choice of origin affects the calculations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing with various interpretations of the integral setup being explored. Some participants have provided alternative bounds and approaches, while others express uncertainty about the correctness of their integrals. There is no explicit consensus yet, as participants continue to compare results and clarify their reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly identifying the axis of rotation and the implications of the rhombus's geometry on the calculations. There is mention of potential discrepancies in results based on different integral setups and the need for careful consideration of limits and factors in the integrals.

  • #31
teleport said:
It is identical to the case of a rod with the axis of rotation through the center. Other rotational lines for the same square also give similar rotational inertias to other cases of axis for a rod. I can speculate why this happens but I'm not sure. Why is it that this happens?

A moment of inertia about a symmetry axis is just a sum over all the dm mass elements times their distances from the axis squared. There are many ways to do such sums. Your division of the plate into two parts and my division of it into four parts are examples. A flat rectangular plate rotating about an in-plane axis that divides it into equal rectangles can be thought of as a series of thin rods stacked side by side. The total moment of inertia is just the sum of the moments of inertia of all the individual rods.

In your problem, you could have divided the plate into strips of height dy and treated each strip as a rod. The problem is more complicated than an axis that divides the plate into equal rectangles because the strips have variable length and mass. But you could have used dI = dmL²/12 as the moment of inertia of a strip of height dy, with dm and L being functions of y and dy and integrated over y to get the sum. In fact, if you take your integral and do the x integral first and the y integral second, that is effecively what you would be doing. You don't get I = M(2c²)/12, which would be the result for a rod whose length is the diagonal of the square because most of the "rods" you are adding are shorter than the diagonal and have proportionately less mass. But for an axis that divides the plate into equal rectangles, all the little rods are identical so the moment of inertia looks just like the moment of inertia of a rod.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hmm, I wonder why there is no explanation of this in my book. Thanks again.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
52
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K