Moment of inertia of a uniform solid sphere

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the moment of inertia of a uniform solid sphere, specifically focusing on the methods used to derive the formula and the discrepancies observed between different approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive the moment of inertia using infinitesimal disks and questions the validity of their approach compared to standard derivations that incorporate the moment of inertia of each disk. Other participants explore the differences between using disks and shells in the calculations, raising questions about the assumptions made in the integration process.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in clarifying the differences in approaches to calculating moment of inertia. Some have provided insights into why the original method may yield a different result, while others are exploring the implications of using different mass elements in the integration process. There is a productive exchange of ideas, but no explicit consensus has been reached regarding the best approach.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted concern about the original poster's understanding of the moment of inertia concept and how it applies to continuous solids versus point masses. The discussion highlights the importance of considering the rotational inertia of the mass elements used in the calculations.

alcoholicsephiroth
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Posted this question in the calculus section but I guess it's more of a basic physics question, so I've copied it here -

Taking a uniform solid sphere of radius R and mass M, with the centre of mass at the origin, I divided it into infinitesimal disks of thickness dx, and radius y. I need to find the moment of inertia about the x-axis, so taking an arbitrary disk at some horizontal distance x from the centre of mass, I obtain ;

y^2 + x^2 = R^2, (fairly obviously),

density, rho = dm/dV,

dV = (pi)(y^2)dx => dm = (rho)(pi)(y^2)dx


So using the standard definition for moment of inertia :

I = integral of (y^2)dm

I = integral of (y^2)(rho)(pi)(y^2)dx -with x limits R and -R

= (rho)(pi) integral of ((R^2 - x^2)^2) dx


which simplifies down to I = (16/15)(pi)(rho)R^5,

and using M = (4/3)(pi)R^3, I obtain I = (4/5)MR^2.


Of course my textbook is telling me it should be (2/5)MR^2, and as far as my understanding goes, this is a consequence of each infinitesimal disk having a moment of inertia of (1/2)dm(r^2).

Logically then, using dI = (1/2)dm(r^2), such that :

I = integral of (pi)(rho)((R^2 - x^2)^2)dx with x limits R and 0, the answer comes out correctly as (2/5)MR^2.

Unfortunately, I am not a particularly sophisticated mathematician and I am worried that my own method, using I = integral of (y^2)dm as described, is giving me an answer which is out by a factor of 2.

I fear I may have made a trivial mistake, but if not, I'd greatly appreciate some insight as to the cause of the discrepancy.

Many thanks!

Trev
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for the link, although I don't actually have any problems with that derivation. What I don't understand is the why my own approach [just integrating (y^2)(dm) to obtain I ] and the derivation shown in the link [ starting with dI = (1/2)(y^2)(dm) ] are any different.

When finding I for a solid cylinder for example, you would use thin concentric cylindrical shells as the infinitesimal mass elements, but it is not necessary to consider what the moment of inertia of each shell is. In this case you can start with I = integral of (y^2)(dm) to obtain I = (1/2)MR^2. But with a sphere, all the literature suggests that the moment of inertia of each mass element must be considered, since all the derivations start with dI = (1/2)(y^2)(dm).
 
alcoholicsephiroth said:
Thanks for the link, although I don't actually have any problems with that derivation. What I don't understand is the why my own approach [just integrating (y^2)(dm) to obtain I ] and the derivation shown in the link [ starting with dI = (1/2)(y^2)(dm) ] are any different.
In your derivation, you are adding up disks, not shells. The rotational intertia of each disk is not y^2 dm as you assume, but 1/2 y^2 dm.
 
But what of the general definition of moment of inertia ?

I = sum of mr^2 for each particle in the solid.

Does it not follow from this definition that the moment of inertia of any continuous solid can be found by turning the above sum into an integral, without the need to consider the rotational inertia of the infinitesimal element of choice, as I tried ?
 
alcoholicsephiroth said:
But what of the general definition of moment of inertia ?

I = sum of mr^2 for each particle in the solid.
That's true for particles, not for disks.

Does it not follow from this definition that the moment of inertia of any continuous solid can be found by turning the above sum into an integral, without the need to consider the rotational inertia of the infinitesimal element of choice, as I tried ?
Only if your element is a point mass. You took a shortcut by taking disks as your mass element. If you started with a particle mass element, and did the full integration, you'd get dI = 1/2 dm r^2 for each disk.
 
Wow I see the light (I think) :P

I'll just take a quick guess here, and say that a small addition to your answer to my second question would be 'only if your element is a point mass, or the element has moment of inertia = dm(r^2) ' ?

I think this follows, looking at the working for a solid cylinder, my textbook uses shells, which each have moment of inertia dm(r^2), and that derivation just uses I = integral of r^2 dm, which is the same working for a point mass element as you point out.

Anyhow, I'll go and review this stuff. Thank you for your explanation!
 
alcoholicsephiroth said:
I'll just take a quick guess here, and say that a small addition to your answer to my second question would be 'only if your element is a point mass, or the element has moment of inertia = dm(r^2) ' ?
Exactly right. :wink:
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K