I What is the purpose of radius of gyration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the confusion regarding the use of radius 'r' and radius of gyration 'Rg' in calculating the moment of inertia for a mass rolling down an incline. It clarifies that the moment of inertia can be expressed as I = mRg^2, where Rg represents the distribution of mass, while I = 1/2 * mr^2 applies specifically to a solid cylinder. Participants question whether the problem specifies the shape of the object, as this affects the appropriate formula to use. The relationship between Rg and r is also discussed, with a suggestion that Rg could be equal to r/√2, depending on the object's characteristics. Understanding the object's geometry is crucial for correctly applying the moment of inertia formula.
TheBlueDot
Messages
16
Reaction score
2
Hello,

I'm given a problem of a mass rolling down an incline with mass 'm', radius 'r', and radius of gyration Rg, and I need to write the Lagrangian for the motion. I'm confused on why both r and Rg are given. Don't I just need one of the two for the moment of inertia?
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The radius of gyration gives the moment of inertia via the equivalence of the given object and an object with all its mass concentrated at a distance of the radius of gyration from the center of mass. So I = m R_g^2.

You can treat the object as a massless cylinder of the given physical radius with a hollow cylinder of mass m and radius R_g embedded within it.
 
Hi jambaugh,

Thank you for your response. The part I'm confused on is if I use Rg the moment of inertia (assume a cylinder) would be I= mRg^2, but if I use 'r', then I=1/2 *mr^2. I guess I don't understand where the question is leading...
 
Why would I = \frac{m}{2} r^2? Is R_g given to be equal to r/\sqrt{2}? Did the problem specifically say the object was a solid disk or cylinder? Maybe the object is not what you are assuming with the \frac{m}{2}r^2 formula.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top