Moment of Inertia Lab for discs of mass

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics lab focused on determining the relationship between the moment of inertia and the radius of discs with a constant mass. Participants are exploring how to derive a general equation that connects these variables.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to analyze experimental data to find a relationship between moment of inertia and radius, expressing uncertainty about isolating the constant k and the significance of the y-intercept Inertia_0.
  • Some participants question the expected value of k in relation to the mass of the discs and the implications of the y-intercept being non-zero.
  • Others suggest revisiting the original data for potential errors and emphasize the importance of considering experimental factors such as friction.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and questioning the calculations. There is a productive exchange regarding the interpretation of results and the influence of experimental conditions, though no consensus has been reached on the discrepancies observed.

Contextual Notes

Participants are operating under the constraints of experimental data and are considering the effects of measurement errors and assumptions about the physical setup, such as the presence of a shaft affecting inertia.

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
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K