What is wrong with my derivation for the moment of inertia of a sphere?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the moment of inertia for a solid sphere, which the original poster incorrectly calculated as (3/5)MR². The correct approach involves recognizing that the moment of inertia for a thin spherical shell is (2/3)MR², leading to the necessary adjustment in the differential moment of inertia equation, dI = (2/3)r² dm. The error arose from treating the shell as a point mass rather than accounting for its distribution, which is crucial for accurate calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with calculus, specifically integration techniques
  • Knowledge of the moment of inertia concept
  • Experience with spherical coordinates and volume calculations
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of the moment of inertia for various geometric shapes
  • Study the application of integration in physics problems
  • Learn about the differences between point masses and distributed mass systems
  • Explore advanced topics in rotational dynamics and their implications
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of rotational motion and the calculations involved in determining moments of inertia.

eg2333
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Ok, so I thought about a derivation for the moment of inertia, but my answer comes out to (3/5)MR^2

Basically, what I did was I considered the sphere as a sum of infinitesimally thin spherical shells.

The moment of inertia for one shell is dI=(r^2)*dm

where dm=(M/V)*4*pi*r^2*dr

where V=(4/3)*pi*R^3

so the equation dI=3*pi*M*r^4*dr when simplified.

Integrating this from 0 to R (Summing up the spherical shells from the center to the edge of the big sphere) gives me (3/5)*M*R^2. The process clearly yields the wrong answer, so I need help seeing where the fault is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The moment of inertia of a thin shell is (2/3)MR^2, not MR^2, so your original dI should be (2/3)r^2 dm - there's your missing factor of 2/3.
 
Ohhhhh, I see. I was treating it as a point.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K