Moment of Inertia Lab for discs of mass

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics lab focused on determining the relationship between the moment of inertia and the radius of discs with the same mass. The participant has derived a formula indicating that inertia is proportional to the square of the radius, but struggles to isolate the constant k and understand the significance of the y-intercept, Inertia_0. It is noted that Inertia_0 should ideally be zero, as a disc with a radius of zero does not exist, yet experimental factors like axle friction may influence results. Concerns are raised about the value of k, which should approximate half the mass of the discs, but the calculated value is inconsistent. The discussion emphasizes the importance of reviewing original data and calculations to ensure accuracy.
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.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top