Moment of Inertia of Hollow Cylinder Derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the moment of inertia for a uniform hollow cylinder, highlighting an error in using the mass of the whole solid cylinder instead of the mass of the hollow section. The initial formula presented, I = MR²/2 - mr²/2, is correct but leads to confusion because it retains the mass of the entire cylinder. Substituting the mass of the hollow cylinder allows for the standard expression, I = (1/2)M_h(R² + r²), to be derived. Additionally, to express I using only the mass of the outer shell, a different mass calculation is necessary. The confusion arises from the specific application of the moment of inertia formula.
BrainSalad
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
For a uniform, hollow cylinder, why is this derivation wrong?

M = mass of whole solid cylinder
m = mass of missing cylindrical piece
R = radius of whole cylinder
r = radius of missing cylindrical piece

moment of inertia = moment of inertia of whole cylinder - moment of inertia of missing cylindrical piece

I = MR2/2 - mr2/2

m/M = pi*r2*h/pi*R2*h = r2/R2

m = M*r2/R2

I = MR2/2 - M*r4/2R2

I = MR4/2R2 - M*r4/2R2

I = M/2R2*(R4 - r4)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems correct, it is only that the result contains in its expression the mass M of the whole cylinder and not the mass of the corresponding hollow cylinder. If you substitute M=\frac{M_{h}R^2}{R^2-r^2} you ll get the usual expression for the inertia of a hollow cylinder I=\frac{1}{2}M_h(R^2+r^2).
 
Last edited:
It's fine as written. If you want to express ##I## using the mass of the outer shell only, call it ##M^\prime,## then you have to use ##M^\prime = M - m = M (1 - r^2/R^2)## to get the usual form for ##I##.
 
Thanks guys. Just a matter of confusion due to the specific application of the formula.
 
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...
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...
Back
Top