What's wrong with this derivation for rotational energy of a sphere?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the derivation of rotational energy for a sphere, highlighting discrepancies in the results obtained through different integration methods. The initial approach incorrectly treated mass as a constant during integration, leading to an erroneous energy expression. The correct method involves integrating the mass distribution of infinitesimal disks, resulting in a consistent formula for rotational kinetic energy. The final correct expression aligns with established results, confirming that the moment of inertia should be evaluated first before applying the rotational kinetic energy formula. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurately accounting for mass distribution in such calculations.
henpen
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
First, energy of a disk:

\int \frac{dm}{2}r^2 \omega^2 =\frac{\omega^2}{2}\int_0^R m\frac{2 \pi r dr}{\pi R^2}r^2 =\frac{m\omega^2}{ R^2}\int_0^R r^3 dr=\frac{m\omega^2 R^2}{4 }
Which agrees with other sources. However, in the following lies my problem:

The equation for a circle: r^2+x^2=R^2 \Rightarrow r^2=R^2-x^2

Energy of a sphere- integrate infinitesimal disks's rotational kinetic energy (assuming rotational energy is additive, which makes sense physically), all of which have their centre through the x-axis:

\int_0^R \frac{m\omega^2 r^2}{4 }dx=\frac{m\omega^2}{4 }\int_0^R(R^2-x^2)dx=\frac{m\omega^2}{4 }\frac{2R^3}{3}=\frac{m\omega^2 R^3}{6 }

This differs from the result here of \frac{I \omega^2}{2}=\frac{m\omega^2 R^2}{5 } quite substantially. Where have I gone wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
henpen said:
Where have I gone wrong?
In setting up your second integral you have treated m as a constant.
 
Gah! Thanks for that.
 
\int_0^R \frac{m(r)\omega^2 r^2}{4 }dx=\frac{\omega^2 }{4 }\int_0^R m(r)r^2 dx
m(r)= \rho \pi r^2 = k r^2
\frac{k\omega^2 }{4 }\int_0^R r^4 dx=\frac{k\omega^2 }{4 }\int_0^R (R^2-x^2)^2 dx=\frac{k\omega^2 }{4 }\int_0^R R^4+x^4-2R^2x^2 dx
=\frac{k\omega^2 }{4 }(R^5+\frac{1}{5}R^5-\frac{1}{3}2R^5 )=\frac{k\omega^2 }{4 }\frac{1}{15}(15R^5+3R^5-10R^5 )=\frac{k\omega^2 }{4 }\frac{1}{15}(8R^5 )
=\frac{2k\omega^2 R^5 }{15 }

k=\pi \rho = \pi \frac{M}{\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3}=\frac{3M}{4R^3}

\frac{2k\omega^2 R^5 }{15 }=\frac{3M}{4R^3}\frac{2\omega^2 R^5 }{15 }=\frac{M \omega^2 R^2}{10}

That's correct: excellent!
 
Since \frac{1}{2}\omega^2 is in common to all discs, it’s (arguably) nicer to evaluate I, and, having found it, to multiply it by \frac{1}{2}\omega^2 afterwards.
 
Philip Wood said:
Since \frac{1}{2}\omega^2 is in common to all discs, it’s (arguably) nicer to evaluate I, and, having found it, to multiply it by \frac{1}{2}\omega^2 afterwards.
That's how I would do it.
 
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