You are on page 1of 4

Analysis of the effects of the location of the mass on a rotating rod on the

moment of inertia of the system

Abstract:
The location of a mass on a rotating rod impacts the moment of inertia of the combined system. .
Therefore, we performed experiments to determine that this is in fact true. We observed the
relationship between the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation of the rod, and the
resulting inertia. We performed 5 runs of the experiment, placing the mass a different distance
from the center, and keeping the same hanging mass each time. This way, we could change the
distance, and note the inertia. The angular acceleration was measured using a photo gate and
necessary computer software, and moment of inertia was calculated by hand. From these results,
the slope of the distance vs. inertia graph was a curve upwards. Therefore, the moment of inertia
of the system increased (non-linearly/non-uniformly) as the distance of the mass from the axis of
rotation increased.

Experimental Design:
Hypothesis

The location of the mass from the center of the rod affects the moment
of inertia of the system.

Prediction

The further the mass is from the center of the rod, the greater the
moment of inertia of the system.

Independent
Variable
Dependent Variable
Control variables

Distance of mass from the axis of rotation


Moment of inertia of the system
Torque = 0.61334 Nm
Mass = 274.99 0.05 g = 0.27499 kg
Table 1: Experimental Design

Results:
Uncertainties:

U{mass of bob} = 0.05 g; estimated error using a balance for measurement of mass

1 | Page

U{mass of falling mass} = 0 g; pre-defined mass


U {angular momentum} varies with each trial. They were obtained from Data Studio and
are listed in the data table below.

Group I:
Distance
from axis of
rotation (m)
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20

Angular Acceleration
(rad/s2)

Moment of interia
(kg m/s2)

1.0 0.0039
0.1354
0.955 0.0035
0.14178
0.829 0.0025
0.16333
0.674 0.0021
0.20089
0.532 0.0016
0.25451
Table 2: Collected data table

Moment of Interia vs. Distance


f(x) = 0x^2 - 0x + 0.14
R = 1
Polynomial ()

Figure 1: Moment of Inertia vs. Distance from axis of rotation graph

Mathematical Model: Inertia = 0.003x2 0.0004x + 0.1355

Conclusions and Discussion:


In this experiment, we observed the relationship between the location of a mass on a rotating rod
and the moment of inertia of the whole system. The independent variable is the distance of the
mass from the axis of rotation of the rod, and the dependent (measured) variable is the moment
2 | Page

of inertia of the system. The total mass of the hanging bob was kept constant (control variable)
so we could observe this relationship. Since the same setup was used each time, the torque was
another control variable; it remained constant as well.
After analyzing the data, it becomes clear that the inertia of the system changes as we change the
location of the mass on the rod. The moment of inertia of the rod increased as we increased the
distance of the mass from the center. Therefore, the research hypothesis was supported by our
results.
Our hypothesis helped explain some of the techniques ice-skaters and dancers use, to control
their motion. Extending their arms out decreases angular acceleration and increases the
momentum, but pulling their arms in increases acceleration and decreases the inertia, just like in
table 2.
Figure 1 shows the graph of the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation vs. the moment of
inertia. The slope of the graph is increasing, non-linearly. As the x-variable increases, the yvariable increases as well. This means that the distance from the center and moment of inertia are
directly related. For example, when the distance is 0.05m, the inertia is 0.141 m/s2. When the
distance is increased to 0.2m, the inertia increases to 0.254 kg m/s2. Inertia increases with
distance, but not linearly/
The mathematical model was:
Inertia = 0.003x2 0.0004x + 0.1355
The curve for the graph fits through all the points perfectly, so there isnt much error on the
graph.
Some of the assumptions we made are:
1. There is no friction in the whole system (including the pulley, the string and the rotating
part of the setup)
2. Air resistance is non-existent
3. The mass of the string is negligible and does not affect the results
Random error includes error in measurement of the mass of the bob placed on top. There is no
error for the hanging mass since standard weights were used. This error was accounted for by
adding 4% error bars on the graph. Friction of the rotating part and in the string added to
systematic error. In theory, the friction would be expected to be 0. All attempts were made to
reduce the systematic and random error. The mass was measured carefully using a balance. None
of these errors affected the data significantly. We are neglecting air resistance in this case; it is
one of the assumptions we make. The only way to eliminate any error due to this would be to
perform this in a vacuum, and that is out of our reach. The effect of air resistance is negligible, so

3 | Page

it did not impact the final conclusion. None of these factors were important enough to
significantly affect our results or refute our claim.
Any changes in these factors would have changed the resulting mathematical model. The part of
the model that would have been affected the most is the intercept. If there wasnt any friction,
and all the situations were ideal, it would have been 0.
The hypothesis for this experiment was supported; the distance of the mass from the center of the
rod affects the moment of inertia of the system. As the distance increases, the inertia increases as
well.

4 | Page

You might also like