Moment of Inertia of Cavendish pendulum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the moment of inertia for a Cavendish pendulum, initially using the formula I = 2(m r^2), which is appropriate for a dumbbell configuration. Participants clarify that the moment of inertia should also account for the suspension mechanism and the weights of the bar and wire. A revised formula is proposed, incorporating the moment of inertia for a rod rotating around its midpoint, resulting in a total moment of inertia calculation of approximately 13,137,851.84 cm² g. Diagrams from Cavendish's original paper are shared to illustrate the pendulum's geometry. The final consensus indicates that the calculations and considerations presented are on the right track.
Pioneer1
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am trying to compute the moment of inertia of the Cavendish pendulum. I used

I = 2(m r^2)

r = gyration arm
m = the weight attached to the pendulum

But this formula is for a dumbell type of torsion pendulum where the weights are attached to the bar.

Does anyone know the formula for a pendulum where the weights are suspended as in the case of the Cavendish pendulum? I couldn't find it online.

With this formula I got

I = 2 ( 729.8 * 93.1^2) = 12,651,243.56 g cm^2

Does this sound right for a pendulum of this dimensions?

Thanks for your help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Pioneer1 said:
Does anyone know the formula for a pendulum where the weights are suspended as in the case of the Cavendish pendulum?

For the benefit of those of us who haven't been following your previous discussions closely, can you provide a diagram of the specific geometry that you have in mind, so we can see how it differs from Example 1 in the link you provided (which is the case where I = 2mr^2)?
 
jtbell said:
For the benefit of those of us who haven't been following your previous discussions closely, can you provide a diagram of the specific geometry that you have in mind, so we can see how it differs from Example 1 in the link you provided (which is the case where I = 2mr^2)?

Thanks for your reply. Here's the drawing from Cavendish's original paper:

http://www.alphysics.com/cavendishexperiment/CavendishSchematic11.jpg

And here's a detail

http://www.alphysics.com/cavendishexperiment/CavendishSchematic111.jpg

Cavendish also gave the weight of the bar and the silver wire he used to strengthen it. I assume those will have to be taken into consideration as well.
 
You've still got two masses revolving around a common central point, so their moment of inertia I is the same as when they're connected by a rod of negligible mass in a dumbbell configuration as in the page you first referenced. So you're OK so far.

What you need now is I for the rotating part of the suspension mechanism. You have the mass of the transverse rod, and I for a rod rotating transversely around its midpoint is a standard case. For some reason it's not on the page you first referenced, but you can find it on Hyperphysics:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#cmi

Just add the two I's together. In principle, you should also consider I for the rest of the rotating part of the apparatus, but the supporting wires are probably pretty light so you can safely neglect them, at least as a start in your analysis.
 
jtbell said:
Just add the two I's together. In principle, you should also consider I for the rest of the rotating part of the apparatus, but the supporting wires are probably pretty light so you can safely neglect them, at least as a start in your analysis.

Ok. Thanks. From hyperphysics I got 1/12 M L^2 and added it to the previous result:

I = 2 m r^2 + 1/12 M L^2

L = length of the rod
r = half length of the rod

So,

Total moment of inertia for the Cavendish experiment = r^2 (2m + 1/3M) = 13,137,851.84 cm2 g

m = weight of each ball = 729.8 g

M = Rod weight = 155.5 + 11 + 2.9 = 169.40 g (including deal rod, silver supporting wire, vernier attached to the arm)

L = Rod length = 73.3 inches = 186.18 cm

r = Half rod length = 93.09 cm

I also added another picture with a little more detail about the arm. (Figure 3 here.)

Does this look good?

Thanks again for your help.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top