Experiment 5: Mass Moment Of Inertia-Rolling Disc

5.1 Moment of Inertia-Theoretical Background.

The moment of inertia I of a body is a measure of how hard it is to get it rotating
about some axis. The moment I is to rotation as mass m is to translation. The larger
the I, the more work required to get the object spinning, just as the larger the mass m,
the more work required to get it moving in a straight line.
The moment of inertia is always defined with reference to a particular axis of
rotation-often a symmetry axis, but it can be any axis, even one that is outside the
body. The moment of inertia of a body about a particular axis defined as:

Performing this sum is easy if the body consist of discrete point masses. But if the
body is a continues object of some arbitrary shape, than performing the sum requires
the techniques of integral calculus. For a disk with an
is through the center of symmetry, the moment of inertia is :

*notice that the thickness of the disc does not enter into the expression for I(disc),
which depends only on the radius and the total mass.

The total energy at any time is the sum of the translational kinetic energy, the
rotational kinetic energy, and the gravitational potential energy.
Energy = KE (translational) + KE (rotational) + PE .

5.2 Measurement of I from dimensions and masses of disk and axle.

Objective: To measure the I from dimensions and masses of disk and axle.
Procedure:
1)
2)
3)
4)

Slide the axle out of the disk and weigh both separately to find their masses.
Measure their diameter to find their radii, r for axle and R for the disk.
Using EQN 1 stated as above to find the I(disk) and I(axle).
Compute I = I(disk) + I(axle)

Result:
Mass of disk = 1400g
Mass of axle = 54g
Radius r of axle = 0.631cm.
Radius R of disc = 5.01cm
I(disk) = 17570 gcm^2
I(axle) = 10.75gcm^2
I(total) = 17580.75gcm^2
Discussion:
When calculate the percentage different from I(axle) to I(disk), (10.75/17570)*100 =
0.061%. Therefore it shows that I(disk) cannot be ignored because even though the
percentage value is small it would also change the reading of the data.. However, we
are making a small mistake by ignoring the hole in the center of the disk, which will
also regard in the change of the accuracy of the data. Therefore if both values add up,
the omission is not significant.

5.3 Measurement of I using energy conservation.

Objective: To measure I based on energy conservation.

Procedure:
1) One end of the rail is raised and lowered to one of three positions.
2) Place the rails in the lowest position and use the adjustable screws in the base
to increase the height.
3) Use the bubble level to get a rough level and place the wheel on the rails.
4) Make sure that the starting blocks are level with each other so that the axle can
be started resting against both blocks and will not roll straight down.
5) Using the meter stick attached to one rail, record the positions of the sharp tip
of the axle in the starting and stopping positions and compute the distance d.
6) Leave the starting blocks fixed from now on, so that the value of d is the same
for all timings.
Results:
Position H1,
H1 = 15cm, h0 =10.58cm, D = 85cm
Time t1average = 6.17s d = 60cm
Vavg = =
=12.85 cm/s
Vfinal = 2 Vavg = 25.70cm/s
Position H2,
H1 = 20cm, h0 = 14.12cm, D = 85cm
Time t1average = 4.64s d = 60cm
Vavg = =
= 14.81 cm/s
Vfinal = 2 Vavg = 29.63cm/s

M(total) = M(disk) + M(axle)

= 1400+54
= 1454g
r = mass of axle
= 0.631cm
H1,
I = 17589.79gcm^2
H2,
I = 17663.23gcm^2
From 1st experiment, I = 17850.75gcm^2
Discussion:
To determine the height h1 and h2, through which the wheels descends, begin by
measuring the height changes H1 and H2 of the end of the rail when it is raised from
the level position to the two upper positions. H1 and H2 can be measured quite
accurately by measuring the separations of the notches that hold up the end of the
rail.
Unfortunately, H1 and H2 are not the actual heights through which the wheel
descends, since it does not roll the whole length of the rail. Instead, the situation is as
shown below, where d is the distance traveled by the wheel, while D is the total
length of the track ( D is measured from the center of the pivot at the bottom to the
center of the support at the top.) The two triangles shown are similar triangles,
therefore: (h/H)=(d/D).

From all the data obtain, M, r, g, vf and ho , use equation 8 to calculate the I.

The percentage different for experiment 2 = (73.44/17663.23)* 100 = 0.41%

Since the percentage error for the calculations is less than 5%, the value is still in the
acceptable range. However lack of accuracy may be cause by: the friction of the
sliding plane, the air friction acting on the rolling disk, and also the accuracy of the
person taking the time. These factors may cause the values to values from each other.
However, the percentage error from experiment 1 and 2 is:
1) [(17850.75-17589.79)/(17850.75)]*100 = 1.46%
2) [(17850.75-17663.23)/(17850.75)]*100 = 1.05%
This may due to the technique to obtain the value I. For experiment 1, we obtain the I
from theoretical method, which is from calculation where we ignored other physical
factors that may cause the value to change. For experiment 2, we obtain the values
from experiment, where small error which as measurement of the height due to
parallax error, time taken when the moving disk stop may varies based on the reaction
time of the taker, and also the value of the weight of the object may be rounded off for
easy calculations. All this factor may causes the values to have a small percentage
different.
Conclusion:
For equation 8, the g is the formula represent the gravitational force acted on the
object, however if the experiment is conducted on the moon, hence the weight of the
object also changes due to the change of g. However for the moment of inertia, the
moon and earth rotate at the same axis, which causes the equation to not specific the
places where the equation is being used.