- #1
ninja319
- 2
- 0
this might sound like a strange and general question but I am a bit confused so please help me, i was wondering what exactly moment of inertia is
- we know just like mass offers resistance in linear dynamics, we need something that offers a similar kind of resistance in rotational dynamics
- i imagined a flat, somewhat heavy, metal plate (lets assume completely cylindrical and a relatively small thickness compared to the radius. more like a flat metallic pizza) floating in empty space. it has a chunk (a slice) cut away from it (so it looks like a metallic pizza with one slice missing).
- now i have to find what is causing the resistance when I am trying to apply force and rotate it.
- i know of the plate causes rotation . so 'I' is proportional to 'm'.
- now a similar amount of force is applied on a point closer to the axis of rotation and a point further away from it. the force applied further away (from observation) shows less resistance. that is it is harder to change the angular velocity when you apply the force closer to a point on the axis of rotation. so further the distance we move from the axis of rotation (more the r) lesser the resistance becomes. therefore, 'I' is inversely proportional to r.
- but that is clearly not the case as I = mr^2 not I = m/r
- I am sure i went wrong in the reasoning. can someone please tell me what it is?
- we know just like mass offers resistance in linear dynamics, we need something that offers a similar kind of resistance in rotational dynamics
- i imagined a flat, somewhat heavy, metal plate (lets assume completely cylindrical and a relatively small thickness compared to the radius. more like a flat metallic pizza) floating in empty space. it has a chunk (a slice) cut away from it (so it looks like a metallic pizza with one slice missing).
- now i have to find what is causing the resistance when I am trying to apply force and rotate it.
- i know of the plate causes rotation . so 'I' is proportional to 'm'.
- now a similar amount of force is applied on a point closer to the axis of rotation and a point further away from it. the force applied further away (from observation) shows less resistance. that is it is harder to change the angular velocity when you apply the force closer to a point on the axis of rotation. so further the distance we move from the axis of rotation (more the r) lesser the resistance becomes. therefore, 'I' is inversely proportional to r.
- but that is clearly not the case as I = mr^2 not I = m/r
- I am sure i went wrong in the reasoning. can someone please tell me what it is?