Christiansen 1

Moment of Inertia

Author: Kait Christiansen

Lab Partners: David Braun, Matthew Silverberg,
John Steffens, and Morgan Schneider
Instructor: Mr. Colletti
AP Physics C
Date Work Performed: October 23, 2014
Date Report Submitted: November 3, 2014

Abstract
The theoretical moment of inertia (I) of the PVC apparatus was found to be
2
0.0175 kg* m . The moment of inertia was experimentally determined to by
measuring its angular acceleration as a function of applied torque .

Christiansen 2

Introduction
The objective of this lab was to find the moment of inertia of a PVC pipe
apparatus using torque and find it again using conservation of energy. The
torque equations are valid in this situation. When a string wrapped around
the central PVC pipe is pulled on, it asserts a torque on the PVC apparatus
(there is a force perpendicular to the radius of the PVC pipe). The
conservation of Energy equations are valid as well. Energy is never
destroyed, and there were no significant sources of energy transfers with the
exception of the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy. Most
outside factors can be ruled out so the energy equations should be valid.

Experiment
The PVC apparatus had a central pipe, and two arms that were weighed
down with heavy bolts (increasing the inertia). The apparatus slipped over a
pole and had a marble between the top of the pole and the top of the PVC
pipe so that the pipe spun freely with limited friction. The school provided
string, a pulley, a stopwatch, a meter stick and a variety of masses to
complete the task.
A crucial element in finding inertia is the tangential acceleration of the PVC
apparatus. In order to find the tangential acceleration, we wrapped the string
around the apparatus and hung the extra string over the pulley. We then
hung different masses on the string and let gravity pull the mass down,
therefore providing a torque on the PVC apparatus. We used the stopwatch
to find the time it took for each mass to drop a distance of .795m. We could
then use kinematics to find the tangential acceleration of the PVC apparatus
because it is equal to the acceleration of the mass. Being they are connected
by string, the acceleration of the mass is equal to the tangential acceleration
of the PVC pipe. (The tangential acceleration is NOT equal to 9.8m/sec^2.
The net force on the apparatus is the force due to gravity on the mass minus
the force due to tension. Unless the force of tension was equal to zero, the
net force would not be equal to 9.8m/sec^2). The process was repeated 9
more times with different masses to receive multiple data points and to
improve accuracy.
The time it took for each mass to fall, the distance each mass was dropped,
and the initial velocity of zero were entered into kinematics equations to find
the tangential acceleration. Additional data was found using the equations
a
=
, =F(lever arm), and =I
r

Christiansen 3

Inertia was also found using energy equations by assuming that the initial potential energy of the
mass was equal to the final kinetic energy of the PVC apparatus. Possible friction on the pulley
and apparatus were disregarded in all calculations.

Raw Data and Observations

Radius of central PVC pipe= .0133m
pipe= .01025m
Mass of 1 bolt=.04784kg

Radius of inside of central PVC

height masses were dropped= .795m

Lever arm (radius of PVC) = .0133m

central piece=.7742kg

mass of 1 arm=.11225kg

mass of

Arm lengths=.335m

Table 1

Mass
(kg)
.04
.1
.15
.2
.25
.3
.4
.5
2
2.2

Time
(s)
23.5
14.88
12
10.5
9.87
8.25
7.56
6.44
6.5
5.56

Results
Table 2

Mass
(kg)
.04
.1
.15

Time
(s)
23.5
14.88
12

a
tangential
2
(m/ s )

2
(rad/ s )

.00288
.0071
.0111

.2165
.5399
.8302

(N*m)
.0052
.013
.0195

Inertia
2
(kg* m
)
.0241
.0241
.0235

Christiansen 4

.2
.25
.3
.4
.5
2
2.2

10.5
9.87
8.25
7.56
6.44
6.5
5.56

.0144
.0163
.02336
.02782
.03834
.03763
.05143

1.084
1.227
1.756
2.092
2.883
2.829
3.867

.026
.0325
.039
.0519
.0649
.2597
.2852

Torque vs ( Including points 9 and 10)

0.3
0.25
0.2

Torque (km*m^2) 0.15

0.1
0.05
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Angular Acceleration (rad/sec^2)

Torque Vs (not including data points 9 and 10)

0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04

Torque (km*m^2) 0.03

0.02
0.01
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Angular Acceleration ( rad/sec^2)

2
Inertia using =.02397 kg* m

3.5

.0240
.0265
.0222
.0249
.0225
.0918
.0738

Christiansen 5

Inertia using Energy= .0241kg* m

2
Theoretical Inertia= .0175 kg* m

Calculations
Tangential Acceleration= found using kinematics
2
y= v 0 +1/2a t

2
.795=1/2a 23.5

.795=276.125a

a=.00288m/

s2
= a/r

=.00288/.0133

=F(lever arm)
I=/

2
=.2165rad/ s

=9.8m(radius of PVC)

=9.8(.04)(.0133)

2
I=.0241kg* m

I=.0052/.2165

Using Energy:
Ug 0 =mgh=.1(9.8)(.795)=.7791J
2
vf 2 = v 0 +2 at y=

0+2(.0071)(.795)=

2
.10625m/ s

1
Kf =
vf 2 =1/2(.1)( .10622 )= 5.6445X 104 J
2 m
1
Kf =
2 I
1
2
K f = Ug 0 =.7791=(5.6445X 104 )+
2 I
1
2
Kf =
2 I =.77854J

=.0052N*m

Christiansen 6

= 0 +t

at
r

2
=.5399rad/ s

f =0+.5399(14.88)=8.0337rad/s
1
.77854= 2 I(8.0337)
I=

2( .77854)
8.0337 2 =.0241

2
I=.0241kg* m

Theoretical inertia
I= I c + I B + I s
1
1
2
2
2
2
5
Ic =
r
r
2 m( 1 + 2 )= 2 (.17743)( .01025 + .0133 )=2.5X 10 kg*
m2
I B =2m r 2= 2(.04784)( .3352 )=.012 kg* m 2
Is

1
2
2
2
2
= 12 m[3( r 1 + r 2 )+ L ]-m ( .5 L+ r 2 ) )=
2

.5(.355+.0133)
1
2
2
2

12 (.11225)[3( .01025 + .0133 )+ .335 ]-(.11225)

)=6.77X 10

kg* m

Christiansen 7
5

I=2.5X 10

+.012+6.77X 10

=.0175 kg* m

Discussion
2
In conclusion, the Inertia of the PVC apparatus was about .02 kg* m . The

inertia in table 2, found using the torque equations averaged out to be .

2
02397 kg* m (not including points 9 and 10). The inertia using energy
equations, found in the calculations section, was found to be about .0241kg*
m 2 . The theoretical Inertia is different at .0175 kg* m2 , as shown in the
calculations section. Although the difference between theoretical and
experimentally found inertia is great, it should be reasonable. The difference
could be due to false calculations or error in the collection of data. However,
it could also be due to the fact that the found inertia may be accounting for
other factors. The PVC pipe might have endured friction against its stand and
there may have been friction in the pulley, both making its inertia seem
greater. The string may have also had a noticeable mass. However, the
greatest possibility of error may have occurred in timing. The person using
the stopwatch may not have accounted for reaction time when starting and
stopping the time.

In order to make this lab more accurate, multiple people should measure the
time it takes for each mass to fall. The average of the times would most
likely be more accurate than one persons measurement. Each mass should
have also been dropped multiple times to average out differences occurring
in each run. If the mass were swaying, it may have had an effect on the time
it took a steady mass to fall. If this were done, the accidents involving
masses 2kg and 2.2kg may not have occurred. Although there are a
multitude of possible errors, it was most likely due to a false time. The
masses should have been dropped more than once to ensure similar times
occurred. We know that these two points are false in graph Torque vs
(including points 9 and 10). The graph should be linear due to the equation
=I. Being inertia is constant, it is a simple y=mx+b equation. The slope
should remain constant and the vs graph should be linear. These two data points
were outliers, so a graph that excluded them was issued. We also know these points are wrong
2
because the inertias found for them are not near .02 kg* m . The inertia of the
apparatus is constant, so the measurements on these two masses are
proven wrong.

Christiansen 8