Why is this method not valid-moments?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gamesguru
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the incorrect calculation of the moment of inertia for a solid sphere using the formula I = ∫ r² dm. The user mistakenly uses the same variable 'r' for both the radius of the sphere and the integration variable, leading to the erroneous result of I = (3/5)r²m instead of the correct I = (2/5)r²m. The confusion arises from integrating over spherical shells rather than cylindrical shells, which is necessary for calculating moment of inertia about an axis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of moment of inertia and its significance in physics.
  • Familiarity with calculus, specifically integration techniques.
  • Knowledge of spherical and cylindrical coordinates.
  • Basic principles of mass density and volume calculations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of moment of inertia for various shapes, focusing on solid spheres and cylinders.
  • Learn about the differences between integrating over spherical and cylindrical shells.
  • Explore the concept of density and its role in mass calculations, particularly in three-dimensional objects.
  • Review advanced integration techniques in calculus to solidify understanding of variable substitutions.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, mechanical engineering, and applied mathematics who are involved in dynamics and rotational motion analysis.

gamesguru
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
[SOLVED] Why is this method not valid-moments?

I'm trying to find the moment of inertia for a solid sphere, I've seen and understand the correct method, but I can't see anything wrong with this method, except the answer.
I=\int r^2 dm
m=\delta V=\frac{4}{3}\delta\pi r^3
dm=4\delta\pi r^2 dr
Thus,
I=4\delta\pi\int r^4dr
Which after some work, turns out to be, incorrectly,
I=\frac{3}{5}r^2m.
The correct answer is,
I=\frac{2}{5}r^2m.
Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gamesguru said:
I'm trying to find the moment of inertia for a solid sphere, I've seen and understand the correct method, but I can't see anything wrong with this method, except the answer.
I=\int r^2 dm
m=\delta V=\frac{4}{3}\delta\pi r^3
dm=4\delta\pi r^2 dr
Thus,
I=4\delta\pi\int r^4dr
Which after some work, turns out to be, incorrectly,
I=\frac{3}{5}r^2m.
The correct answer is,
I=\frac{2}{5}r^2m.
Thanks in advance.


m=\delta V=\frac{4}{3}\delta\pi r^3

How'd you arrive at this?
 
rock.freak667 said:
m=\delta V=\frac{4}{3}\delta\pi r^3

How'd you arrive at this?
I did this by: \delta is the density. Mass=density x volume, m=\delta V. The volume of a sphere is: V=\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3.
So,
m=\frac{4}{3}\delta \pi r^3.
Take the derivative:
\frac{dm}{dr}=4\delta\pi r^2,
rearrange:
dm=4\delta\pi r^2 dr.
 
It could be smart to denote the radius of the sphere with R, and use r for the integration variable. Using the same symbol causes confusion.

The true mistake however is that the r in the original formula is not the same r as the integration variable. The r in the original formula is the component of the \bar{r} vector on the normal plane of the rotation axis.

Would these look good? I cannot guarantee they are right :wink:

<br /> I = \int (r\sin(\theta))^2 dm<br />

<br /> dm = 2\pi\delta r^2\sin(\theta) d\theta\; dr<br />

<br /> 0&lt;r&lt;R,\quad 0&lt;\theta&lt;\pi<br />
 
gamesguru said:
I'm trying to find the moment of inertia for a solid sphere, I've seen and understand the correct method, but I can't see anything wrong with this method, except the answer.
Here is what is wrong:
I=\int r^2 dm
That r is the distance of some differential quantity of mass dm from the axis of rotation ...
dm=4\delta\pi r^2 dr
... while that r is the distance of some differential quantity of mass dm from the center of the sphere.
 
gamesguru said:
m=\delta V=\frac{4}{3}\delta\pi r^3
dm=4\delta\pi r^2 dr

Hi gamesguru! :smile:

You're integrating over spherical shells of constant radius.

But Moment of Inertia is about an axis, never about a point.

So you need to integrate over cylindrical shells of constant radius. :smile:
 
Thanks D H, I see the problem now. And I see why using this method with a cylinder, by chance, works.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K