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.
 
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