Moments of Inertia: Practical Applications & Integration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding moments of inertia (MOIs) and their practical applications, particularly in relation to calculating the rotational inertia of various shapes. Participants clarify that MOIs represent a body's resistance to angular acceleration, analogous to mass in linear motion. The conversation highlights the importance of the Parallel Axis Theorem and integration in determining MOIs, especially for complex shapes. It is noted that while standard shapes have established formulas, integration is essential for deriving these formulas from first principles. Overall, the thread emphasizes the connection between calculus and the calculation of rotational inertia.
Sonny
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am currently learning about how to calculate moments of inertia of various shapes. I can calculate them fine using the Parallel Axis Theorem, but I am having some difficulty trying to understand the overall concept.

Can somebody give me some practical applications of MOEs? I am also having some difficulty relating them to my understanding of integrals. I use no integration in my present calculations, since most of the shapes I am evaluating are composites of rectangles, triangles, circles, etc..

Would integration make even these simple shapes easier to calculate?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sonny,
Moment of inertia is also known as rotational inertia. That in itself says a lot. The Inertia of a body is it's resistance to acceleration. I'm sure that you are quite familiar with the concept of inertia from your study of rectilinear motion. The moment of inertia is the magnitude of, and the location of the inertia of a rotating body (it's resistance to angular acceleration).

As far as the practical use of this concept is concerned, think about this:
When you accelerate in you car, how many parts of that car undergo angular acceleration? What is the moment of inertia of each of these parts? How much force does it take to impart a given rate of acceleration to your car taking all of this into account?


A careful examination of your work will reveal that you are already using integral calculus in determining the moment of inertia for the shapes that you mentioned.

I hope this helps you,
Mike
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The parallel axis theorem allows you to calculate the rotational inertia about any axis once you know the rotational inertia about the center of mass. In order to find the rotational inertia of an object about its center of mass you would need to use integration, as Mike says. Of course, for standard shapes you can just look up the answers. (Someone else has done the integration!)

Rotational inertia is the rotational analog to mass. Newton's 2nd law for rotational motion is: α = (∑Τ)/I, where α is the angular acceleration, Τ is the torque, and I is the rotational inertia about the axis of interest. Just like mass tells you how a body will respond to an applied force (using Newton's 2nd law), rotational inertia tells you how a body will respond to an applied torque (a twisting force).
 
Thanks Guys,

I guess inertia being resistance to acceleration was what I was forgetting. And, in retrospect, it seems quite obvious that calculus is used to come up with the formulas for 'rotational inertia' about a centroid.

Cheers.
 
Sonny said:
it seems quite obvious that calculus is used to come up with the formulas for 'rotational inertia' about a centroid.

Sonny,
Good for you for seeing this! Sometimes your prof will tell you this sort of thing and you may miss it because it goes by in the wink of a eye. Sometimes some of the pieces of the puzzle are left out by a prof (gee I thought I mentioned that) and you have to try spot them on your own. It can happen, even to a very good prof.

Doc Al,
Thank you for rounding out my (too brief) explanation.
Good job,
Mike
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top