Moment of inertia of hollow cylinder, axis orthogonal to length

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the moment of inertia of a hollow cylinder with an axis orthogonal to its length, referencing the Feynman lectures. The initial approach involved slicing the cylinder into thin rods and applying the parallel axis theorem, but resulted in an incorrect formula. The error was identified as treating the hollow cylinder as solid, leading to confusion in the calculations. After reconsidering the method and partitioning the cylinder into concentric hollow cylinders, the correct moment of inertia was successfully derived. This highlights the importance of accurately defining the geometry in physics calculations.
jds17
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Hi, I am working through the Feynman lectures on physics and trying to calculate the moment of inertia stated in the title.
(the taxis of rotation going through c.m., orthogonal to length).
My approach is to slice the cylinder into thin rods along the length, using the parallel taxis theorem and the result for a rod.
Unfortunately, I get as result: I = M ( L^2 / 12 + r^2 / 2). I.e. the last numerator comes out as 2 instead of 4, as stated in section
19-2. The corresponding expression comes from summing up dm sum( z_i ^ 2), where dm is the mass of a single rod and z_i
the height of the rod's center of inertia. Perhaps my mistake lies in handling the 2-dim slices as 3-dim rods?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I would slice the cylinder into rings instead. It makes integration far easier.
 
jds17 said:
My approach is to slice the cylinder into thin rods along the length, using the parallel taxis theorem and the resultat for a rod.
Unfortunately, I get as result. I = M ( L^2 / 12 + r^2 / 2). I.e. the last numerator comes out as 2 instead of 4, as stated in section
19-4.
Your method looks OK to me. Feynman lists (in table 19-2) the moment of inertia of a solid cylinder.
 
@Doc Al: Thank you for your reply, I took the cylinder as a hollow one, and this seems to be my mistake. I will try
to do the calculation again for the solid cylinder as soon as I get back home.

@K^2: thank you, too, but I wanted to find out what was wrong with my thinking instead of doing a different
calculation. I will try yours, too, although it seemed more complicated when I first considered it
 
Hi, everything turned out nicely, considering a partition into concentric hollow cylinders, adding their M.I.s (calculated as before) up and going to the limit gives the answer in table 19-2!
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top