Analysis

A. Sources of Errors
1. Levelling of the overall equipment
2. Levelling of string from the shaft to the pulley
3. Levelling and alignment of the mounting rod when pulley and photogate have been attached
4. Difficulty in balancing the rotating platform, thus causing imbalance on the force and uneven
distribution of weight.
B. Concept/s or Principles Used
1. Moment of Inertia- degree of difficulty in changing the rotational motion of a rigid body.
 Moment of inertia of a disk rotated about an axis through its center, and through its diameter
 Factors that affect the moment of inertia of a disk when mass and shape of mass is the same:
- Orientation, distribution, and location of mass from axis of rotation
2. Newton’s Second Law of Motion for a Rotating Rigid Body
 Torque – quantitative ability of a force to rotate a body about an axis
C. Relation of Data to the Concept or Principle of the Experiment
I. Moment of Inertia – determined by mass and radius of disk alone
a.) Rotated through center: 𝐼𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 94,695.19582 𝑔 − 𝑐𝑚2
b.) Rotated through diameter: 𝐼𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 47,347.59791 𝑔 − 𝑐𝑚2
- Object rotated in a different axis has different moment of inertia (depends on how mass is
distributed from the axis of rotation)
II. Newton’s Second Law of Motion (Torque) – determined by unbalanced force, radius of
shaft, and acceleration caused by unbalanced force
a.) Rotated through center: 𝐼𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 104,5547.7219 𝑔 − 𝑐𝑚2
b.) Rotated through diameter: 𝐼𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑘 = 48,537.5355 𝑔 − 𝑐𝑚2

Conclusion

Basing on the data, the moment of inertia of the disk rotated about an axis through its center is greater
than when then disk is rotated through its diameter. This leads me to the conclusion that a same object
rotated on a different axis will have a different moment of inertia. The experiment was approached
using two different methods, wherein the first is the concept of inertia for the accepted value, and the
other is the concept of Newton’s second law of motion involving torque for the experimented value.
The objectives of the experiment are to determine the moment of inertia of the disk rotated in different
orientations. Comparing the accepted values and experimental values, it can be concluded that the
experiment is successful, most especially since the percent difference were only at 9.89% and 2.48%.

The concept of moment of inertia was exercised when the procedures of the experiment required in the
measuring of the disk’s mass, its radius, changing its orientation for two parts, and incorporating the
measured data into to the equation of moment of inertia for a disk. This is the theoretical part that did
not needed actual demonstrations, but only pieces of information that the equation required. On the
other hand, the concept of Newton’s Second Law of Motion involving torque was practiced when the
experiment put into consideration the factor of an unbalanced force and an object’s acceleration. It is
already known that the second law of motion involves net force to cause an object’s acceleration – this
time, however it was in the form of torque since the object is round and inclined for rotational motion.
Thus, the moment of inertia was determined by actual demonstration of the concept, subsequently
affirmed by calculations from the provided derived equation of moment of inertia and torque.

Through the experiment, I learned that the moment of inertia of an object is dependent on the object’s
mass and the distance of that mass from the axis of rotation. However, the object used for the second
part was the same, thus the mass was maintained. This lead me to realize that if this is the case, the
distance from the center of rotation makes a difference – this is where the difference in orientation
comes in, since it depends on how the mass is distributed from the axis. When the disk was rotated
through the center, its mass was evenly distributed at its circumference and its radius equal to the
distance from the axis, resulting to a greater moment of inertia; but when the disk was rotated through
its diameter, its radius was parallel to the axis of rotation and its mass was concentrated nearer to the
center, thus a lower moment of inertia. This meant that the disk through the center was harder to change
the motion while the disk through the diameter was easier.

In application to Geology, moment of inertia can be used in observing and determining the behavior of
mass flows, rock falls, landslides, and avalanches. Although moment of inertia is dependent on mass,
it should also be noted how energy is distributed when an object is in motion. These geological hazards
involve both sliding and rolling motions; they start from a high ground, like a ramp, and this allows for
high gravitational potential energy. For linear mass, such as landslides and avalanches, all of its
potential energy is converted into translational kinetic energy, thus it moves faster. But for rolling mass
such as rock falls, only some of its potential energy is converted into rotational kinetic energy, and the
energy that goes into its rotation is not being used to make it move faster since the energy is more
focused on rotating about an axis than covering an actual distance. Linear motion has linear momentum
which only involves the object’s mass and linear velocity, thus there is more room for energy to be
converted into translational motion. But with angular momentum, alongside angular velocity, it puts
into consideration an object’s moment of inertia, thus energy goes to somewhere else instead, in this
case, the rotation in focus to an axis, instead of translational motion only. In geology, the shape of rocks
and the function of mass of grounds and soil varies. Using the concept of moment of inertia alongside
the knowledge of the nuances of rocks, it will be easier to predict the behaviors, especially velocity, of
geological activities; thus helps in measuring the magnitude of geological disasters and predicting their
intensity, enhancing our preparedness in disaster response and increases our chances in mitigating risks
during state of calamities.