Moment of Inertia vs. Inertia Constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the definitions and equations related to the inertia constant (H) and moment of inertia (J) for synchronous machines. The inertia constant is defined as H = (1/2 J ω_0^2) / S, where S is the rated power and ω_0 is the nominal angular frequency. There is confusion regarding the units of J, as they seem inconsistent with the expected units of kg m^2. Participants clarify that radians are unitless, allowing for simplification in calculations, and emphasize the importance of using watts instead of megawatts for clarity. The conversation highlights the potential for confusion due to different definitions of "inertia constant" in various references.
hansherman
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The following equations are found in the following reference (Page 119):

http://www.eeh.ee.ethz.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/eeh/studies/courses/power_system_dynamics_and_control/Documents/DynamicsPartI_lecture_notes_2012.pdf

By definition, the inertia constant for a synchronous machine is defined as

H = (1/2 J \omega_0^2) / S

where

a) H= \text{constant of inertia } (s)
b) S = \text{rated power of synchronous machine } (MW)
c) \omega_0 = \text{nominal angular frequency } (rad/s)
d) J = \text{moment of inertia for rotor } (kg m^2)

I.e.

J = 2HS/\omega_0^2

can be used to find the moment of inertia. Based on the units of a), b) and c) the unit of J is

s MW/(rad^2/s^2)

However, i cannot see that this is the same as kg/m^2, as the result is supposed to yield from d). Can anyone help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint #1: Radians are unit less, so you can drop that term.
Hint #2: The watt (and hence megawatts) is a derived unit. What are its primitive units?
 
Hint #3: Instead of using MW (megawatts) you should just use W (watts). M is just a numerical factor of 1000000 and therefore is unitless. The Watt is the standard unit of power for the metric system.
 
There is no reference to this on page 119.

However, the quantity defined in your post have units of seconds (energy/power).
The confusion may be due to the fact that (at least) two different quantities may be called the same name: "inertia constant".

See for example here:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Su3...onepage&q=inertia constant of machine&f=false

You are talking here about the second quantity, the H defined on page 540 of that book and not the first one (I*ω) which is also called inertia constant, on the same page.
 
I do not understand why Radians are unit less. Can anyone explain this? Thanks for the answers.
 
Because you divide [Length] by [Length]

θ = s /r

s is arc length (of a circle)
r is radius

EDIT:

This page has a nice graphical (animated) explanation about the radian:
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Радиан
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top