Moment of Inertia Lab for discs of mass

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on determining the moment of inertia for discs of varying radius with a constant mass. The participant established a relationship expressed as Inertia = 0.7767020443R² + 0.00017554163, where the slope (k) is expected to be half the mass of the discs, yet the calculated value does not align with this expectation. The significance of the y-intercept, Inertia_0, is questioned, particularly regarding its value at a radius of zero. The conversation emphasizes the importance of error analysis and verifying calculations to ensure accuracy in experimental results.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of moment of inertia concepts
  • Familiarity with linear regression analysis
  • Basic knowledge of experimental physics and error analysis
  • Proficiency in graphing techniques and interpreting slope and intercept
NEXT STEPS
  • Investigate the relationship between moment of inertia and mass for rigid bodies
  • Learn about error propagation in experimental physics
  • Explore the effects of friction in rotational systems
  • Review linear regression methods for data analysis in physics experiments
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, experimental researchers, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of rotational dynamics and data analysis in laboratory settings.

errorbars
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


We recently had a Physics lab where we were expected to find a relationship between the moment of inertia and discs of varying radius (discs have same mass), and develop a general equation to illustrate the relationship between moment of inertia and radius for discs of any mass.

Homework Equations


The general formula of the line is Inertia = (constant k)Radius^2 + Inertia_0
Inertia = mr^2((g/a)-1)

The Attempt at a Solution



I have managed to determine the average time, acceleration, and moment of inertia with the experimental time. I have figured out that the relationship between disc radius and moment of inertia is Inertia = Radius^2 (I believe). However, my current problem is a graph of Inertia vs Radius^2 -- my current line of best fit is y=0.7767020443x + 0.00017554163. The general formula of the line is Inertia = (constant k)Radius^2 + Inertia_0 . I have been unable to isolate k, and thus determine the relationship between k and the mass of the discs. (it should be a basic fraction). Also, I am having trouble understanding the significance of Inertia_0 -- should there not be any inertia if the disc has a radius of 0?

Thanks for any assistance you can offer!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF, errorBars!

So x is R², right? And you have y=0.7767020443x + 0.00017554163 which is really Inertia = 0.7767020443R² + 0.00017554163
compared to Inertia = kR² + Inertia_0
It looks pretty straightforward to identify the values of k and Inertia_0.

You would normally expect Inertia at radius zero to be zero since a disk with radius zero really doesn't exist, but in any experiment you probably have a shaft on the disk with some inertia. In view of your nickname, you must have error bars on the graph and an estimate of the accuracy of your slope and y-intercept. Is the 0.00017554163 larger than the error in it? If not, I think you would conclude that it is zero to within experimental error.
 
Delphi51 said:
Welcome to PF, errorBars!

So x is R², right? And you have y=0.7767020443x + 0.00017554163 which is really Inertia = 0.7767020443R² + 0.00017554163
compared to Inertia = kR² + Inertia_0
It looks pretty straightforward to identify the values of k and Inertia_0.

You would normally expect Inertia at radius zero to be zero since a disk with radius zero really doesn't exist, but in any experiment you probably have a shaft on the disk with some inertia. In view of your nickname, you must have error bars on the graph and an estimate of the accuracy of your slope and y-intercept. Is the 0.00017554163 larger than the error in it? If not, I think you would conclude that it is zero to within experimental error.

Thanks!

I just have a bad feeling about k though... shouldn't k be somewhere around 1/2 of the mass of the discs according to the equation for moment of inertia? (I=(1/2)mr^2)? Unfortunately 0.7767 is not half of 0.5 kg... hm...

Hm, that's what I suspected for the y-intercept. That's probably why the discussion asks how the friction in the axle bearing affects the results? :P
 
Yes, k should be half the mass. I have no idea why it isn't.
It might be worth going back to the original data and checking one or two or the runs individually to see whether the k is close to the .77. If so, look for some error in the calculations. Always worth eyeballing the graph and calculating the slope by hand! Calculators can get the wrong answer just as fast as the right one.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K