Rotational Dynamics Lab Report

Purpose:

The purpose of this lab is to explore rotational dynamics. Specifically, it will look at
the relationship between torque and angular acceleration, as well as the moment of inertia
of different systems.

Moment of inertia is defined as a measure of an object’s resistance to change in

rotational motion. It is also defined as the ratio between the torque applied to the object
and the angular acceleration it undergoes. Torque, τ, is defined as the measure of force
that causes an object’s rotational motion. This relationship is displayed in equation form
below:

τ = 𝐼α

The moment of inertia of an object depends on how much mass the object has, how
the mass is distributed, and the object’s radius or relative distance from the axis of
rotation. Essentially, a larger mass, located at the same radius as a smaller mass, will
have a larger moment of inertia, as will a larger radius with the same mass. Mass
concentration relative to the axis will also display a similar relationship to the moment of
inertia, where mass concentrated closer to the axis will have a higher moment of inertia,
while mass concentrated farther away will have a lower relative moment of inertia. This
means that masses concentrated farther away from the axis of rotation will require more
torque to achieve the same angular acceleration. This relationship is shown in the equation
below:
2
𝐼 = 𝑚𝑟
The equation for the moment of inertia can also be displayed as shown below,
where integrating will result in the above equation.

2
𝐼 = ∫ 𝑟 𝑑𝑚
Materials:
●​ Vernier Graphical Analysis
●​ Vernier Rotary Motion Sensor
●​ Ring stand
●​ Mass hanger
●​ Pennies (8 total)
●​ Fishing Wire
●​ Balance
●​ Ruler
Procedure:

Set up the Rotary Motion sensor on the ring stand and measure the radius of the
middle pulley. Measure the radius and the mass of the aluminum disk with the smallest
hole, recording it for the analysis. Find the mass of the mass hanger and record. Attach
the mass hanger to the pulley string and position the set-up so that the fully extended
pulley string does not touch the table. Wind the string around the middle pulley. Using
Vernier Graphical Analysis, connect to the sensor and set the data collection time to five
seconds. For this experiment, we added zero, two, four, six, and eight pennies to the mass
hanger. The masses of each of these were recorded for the data tables seen in the Data
section. Once we’d set up each trial, we started the data collection in graphical analysis
and let it run until the five seconds had run out. Using the resulting angular velocity-time
graph, we took the slope of the graph and added it to the data tables seen in the next
section under angular acceleration. This process was then repeated for each of the mass
measurements. Then, a second aluminum disk was stacked onto the first disk, and the
experiment was repeated. For the third part of the experiment, the disks were replaced
with a metal rod. The length and mass of the rod were measured and recorded. For the
fourth part, point masses were added to each end of the rod, and the experiment was
repeated. The point masses’ distance from the center of the rod was measured, as was the
mass of each of the point masses.
Data:
Radius of pulley = 1.45 cm = 0.0145 m

Part 1: One Disk

Alumnium Disk w/ smallest hole Mass = 106g = 0.106 kg
Alumnium Disk w/ smallest hole radius = 4.2cm = 0.042m
Alumnium Disk w/ smallest hole width = 0.6cm = 0.006 m

Mass (kg) 𝑟𝑎𝑑 Net torque (𝑁 · 𝑚)

Angular acceleration ( 2 )
𝑠

0.006 8.056 0.0008598

0.011 14.27 0.001562

0.017 20.39 0.002392

0.022 26.48 0.003068

0.027 32.80 0.003729

Part 2: Two Disks

2nd aluminum disk Mass = 106g = 0.106kg
2nd disk radius = 4cm = 0.04 m
2nd disk width = 0.6cm = 0.006 m
Mass (kg) 𝑟𝑎𝑑 Net torque (𝑁 · 𝑚)
Angular acceleration ( 2 )
𝑠

0.006 4.129 0.0008648

0.012 7.501 0.001578

0.018 10.87 0.002426

0.022 14.36 0.003125

0.028 17.55 0.003815

Part 3: Rod
Rod = 38g = 0.038 kg
Rod length = 0.3683 m
Radius measure for rod = 0.18415 m

Mass (kg) 𝑟𝑎𝑑 Net torque (𝑁 · 𝑚)

Angular acceleration ( 2 )
𝑠

0.006 1.757 0.0008678

0.012 3.009 0.001588

0.018 4.188 0.002450

0.022 5.593 0.003164

0.028 7.329 0.003873

Part 4: Rod-Point Mass

Point masses = 81g each = 0.081 kg each
Middle of rod to middle of mass = 0.175 m
 Mass (kg) 𝑟𝑎𝑑 Net torque (𝑁 · 𝑚)
Angular acceleration ( 2 )
𝑠

0.006 1.632 0.0008679

0.012 2.881 0.001588

0.018 4.292 0.002450

0.022 5.747 0.003163

0.028 6.922 0.003163

Analysis:
Net Torque Derivation:
𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡 = (𝑀 + 𝑚)𝑎 − 𝑚𝑔 = 0

𝑚𝑔 = 𝑀𝑎 + 𝑚𝑎
𝑀𝑎 = 𝑚𝑔 − 𝑚𝑎
𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑀𝑎 = 𝑚(𝑔 − 𝑎)

τ𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑟𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡𝑠𝑖𝑛θ

θ = 90° so 𝑠𝑖𝑛θ = 1
τ𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑟𝐹𝑛𝑒𝑡 = 𝑚(𝑔 − 𝑎𝑡) · 𝑟

𝑎𝑡 = 𝑟α

Στ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
Calculations for Net Torque:
Part 1: One Disk
Trial 1
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 006)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(8. 056) = 0. 0008598 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 2
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 011)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(14. 27) = 0. 001562 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 3
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 017)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(20. 39) = 0. 002392 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 4
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 022)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(26. 48) = 0. 003068 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 5
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 027)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(32. 80) = 0. 003729 𝑁 · 𝑚
Part 2: Two Disks
Trial 1
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 006)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(4. 129) = 0. 0008648 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 2
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 011)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(7. 501) = 0. 001578 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 3
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 017)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(10. 87) = 0. 002426 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 4
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 022)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(14. 36) = 0. 003125 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 5
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 027)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(17. 55) = 0. 003815 𝑁 · 𝑚
Part 3: Rod
Trial 1
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 006)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(1. 757) = 0. 0008678 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 2
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 011)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(3. 009) = 0. 001588 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 3
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 017)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(4. 188) = 0. 002450 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 4
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 022)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(5. 593) = 0. 003164 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 5
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 027)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(7. 329) = 0. 003873 𝑁 · 𝑚
Part 4: Rod-Point Mass
Trial 1
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 006)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(1. 632) = 0. 0008679 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 2
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 011)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(2. 881) = 0. 001588 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 3
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 017)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(4. 292) = 0. 002450 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 4
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 022)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(5. 747) = 0. 003163 𝑁 · 𝑚
Trial 5
τ = 𝑚𝑟(𝑔 − 𝑟α)
τ = (0. 027)(0. 0145)(10 − (0. 0145)(6. 922) = 0. 003876 𝑁 · 𝑚

Angular Acceleration vs. Net Torque Graphs:

Figure 1: Part 1 Graph (Curve Fit Equation: 𝑦 = 0. 000117396𝑥 − 0. 000072621)

Figure 2: Part 2 Graph (Curve Fit Equation: 𝑦 = 0. 000220989𝑥 − 0. 0000430459)

 Figure 3: Part 3 Graph (Curve Fit Equation: 𝑦 = 0. 000548021𝑥 − 0. 00000914354)

Figure 4: Part 4 Graph (Curve Fit Equation: 𝑦 = 0. 00046077𝑥 + 0. 000267465)

∆τ
Experimental Calculations for Moment of Inertia (using 𝐼 = ∆α
): (close, but no cigar)

Part 1: One Disk

0.003729 − 0.0008598 2
𝐼= 32.80 − 8.056
= 0. 0001160 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
2
From graph: 0.000117396 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
Part 2: Two Disks
0.003815 − 0.0008648 2
𝐼= 17.55 − 4.129
= 0. 0002198 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
2
From graph: 0.000220989 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
Part 3: Rod
0.003873 −0.0008678 2
𝐼= 7.329 − 1.757
= 0. 0005393 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
2
From graph: 0.000548021 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
Part 4: Rod-Point Mass
0.003163 − 0.0008679 2
𝐼= 6.922 − 1.632
= 0. 0004339 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
2
From graph: 0.00046077 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚

Derivations and Calculations for Measured Moment of Inertia:

Part 1: One Disk
𝑀𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 0. 106 𝑘𝑔

𝑅𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 0. 042 𝑚

2
𝐼𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = ∫ 𝑟 𝑑𝑚

𝑀 2𝑀
𝑑𝑚 = ( 2 ) · 2π𝑟𝑑𝑟 = 2 𝑟𝑑𝑟
π𝑅 𝑅

2
𝑑𝐼 = 𝑟 𝑑𝑚 = 𝑟
2 2𝑀
( 𝑅
2 𝑟 𝑑𝑟 = ) 2𝑀
𝑅
2
3
𝑟 𝑑𝑟

𝑅 4
2𝑀 3 2𝑀 𝑅
𝐼𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = ∫ 2 𝑟 𝑑𝑟 = 2 · 4
0 𝑅 𝑅

2
𝑀𝑅
𝐼𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 2
2
0.106 (0.042) 2
𝐼𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 2
= 0. 00009349 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
Part 2: Two Disks
2
𝑀𝑅
𝐼2𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 2
·2
2
𝐼2𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 𝑀𝑅
2 2
𝐼2𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 0. 106 (0. 042) = 0. 0001870 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚

Part 3: Rod
𝑀𝑟𝑜𝑑 = 0. 038 𝑘𝑔

𝐿𝑟𝑜𝑑 = 0. 368 𝑚

2
𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑑 = ∫ 𝑟 𝑑𝑚

𝑑𝑚 = λ𝑑𝑥
𝐿
2 3 3 3
2 λ𝑥 λ𝐿 𝑀 𝐿
𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑑 = λ ∫ 𝑥 𝑑𝑥 = 3
= 12
= 𝐿
· 12
𝐿
−2

2
𝑀𝐿
𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑑 = 12
2
0.038 (0.368) 2
𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑑 = 12
= 0. 0004288 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚

Part 4: Rod-Point Mass

𝑀𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 0. 081 𝑘𝑔

𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 0. 175 𝑚
2
𝐼𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 𝑀𝑅

𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑑−𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑑 + 2𝐼𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡

2
𝑀𝐿 2
𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑑−𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 12
+ 2𝑀𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡
2
0.038 (0.368) 2 2
𝐼𝑟𝑜𝑑−𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 = 12
+ 2(0. 081)(0. 175) = 0. 005390 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
Conclusion:

​ Based on the data gleaned from the graphs, the angular acceleration is proportional
to the net torque. A higher angular acceleration also resulted in a lower moment of inertia,
meaning that the first part (one disk) with having the highest angular acceleration, had
the lowest moment of inertia, and the fourth part (rod-point mass) had the highest
moment of inertia to go with its slowest angular acceleration. With each addition of mass,
the angular acceleration decreased, making the moment of inertia increase, and increasing
the torque required to get the system moving. However, both the experimental values and
the calculated values were different, (as written before in the report, all close, but no
cigar) but the values were all very close (with the exception of the fourth part), as
indicated by the percent error calculations for the moment of inertia below.

Part 1:
2
Experimental: 0. 0001160 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
2
Measured: 0. 00009349 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
|0.0001160−0.00009349|
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 0.00009349
· 100 = 24. 07

Part 2:
2
Experimental: 0. 0002198 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
2
Measured: 0. 0001870 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
|0.0002198−0.0001870|
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 0.0001870
· 100 = 17. 54

Part 3: ​
2
Experimental: 0. 0005393 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
2
Measured: 0. 0004288 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
|0.0005393−0.0004288|
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 0.0004288
· 100 = 25. 77
Part 4:
2
Experimental: 0. 0004339 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
2
Measured: 0. 005390 𝑘𝑔 · 𝑚
|0.0004339−0.005390|
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 0.005390
· 100 = 91. 95

​ These large variations in the experimental and measured values means could stem
from issues such as forgetting to factor in air resistance or friction. Or the fishing could
have slipped off the pulley at some point without us noticing, potentially effecting the data.
Small changes such as factoring in friction in both the pulley and from air resistance, or
using an ideal pulley, or attaching the string to the pulley more securely coule help with
getting more accurate results.