Name: Caleb Pook

Lab Partner(s): Luke Steinhubel, Jackie Mudd

Date: 11/8/2023

Torque and Angular Momentum Lab Report

Purpose:

To calculate the rotational inertia of various objects using the conservation of angular
momentum and validating that with their theoretical inertia.

Procedure:

Figure 1: Equipment setup. Images on the left depict the sensor

pulley and super pulley system while the image on the right
depicts a bird’s eye view of the barbell and weights on the
sensor pulley

Table 1: Equipment ID. The above

depict the materials with a given
serial number

1
 Table Equipment. Measurements of the above objects were taken
with the scale from Table 1, a vernier caliper, and a ruler. Note:
the block’s diameter is actually a measurement of its length and
the radius is its width. Additionally the Ring’s diameter is actually
its first radius and the Radius is its second radius (inner radi).

We first gathered out equipment: (from Table 2 &1) rotary motion sensor, super pulleys, disk,
ring, barbell, block, weights, ring stand, thin string, c-clamps, laptop, workshop 850, paper clips, and
high-capacity balances. We set up the equipment as shown in Figure 1; with the super pulley attached to
the rotary motion sensor such that the force applied is as tangential as possible. The rotary motion
sensor sat at the top of the ring stand which was firmly placed on the edge of the table with the c-
clamps. We ran a string through the rotary motion sensor and through the super pully and tied a 20g
mass to the end of the string with a paper clip thus making our net force on the system. We then ran
three trials of every combination of objects listed in our lab notebooks, beginning with the sensor pulley
by itself, the disk, the block, ring, rod, and rod plus weights. Each trial began with the string completely
wound up around the motion sensor. We then dropped the weight causing its gravitational force to act
tangentially on the object we were measuring, thus causing it to rotate while the motion sensor
recorded its velocity. Capstone was able to graph the velocity over time to give us our net acceleration
of the system in that trial. With all the varying objects and each undergoing 3 trials, there was a total of
18 trials in this lab.

2
Data:

Table 3: Raw Data. The recorded accelerations from Capstone on the Laptop for each trial and
their corresponding average acceleration per group of trials. Acceleration is measured in m/s².
Trials 1-3 reflect the inertia recording of the sensor pulley with the clear disk, 4-6 the disk, 7-9
the block and the disk etc. according to the procedure. All calculations including the calculation
for average acceleration is given in the Calculations section

3
Results:

Table 4: Calculated Inertias from the average accelerations of the three trials in Table 3.
“Experimental (I)” gives the calculated inertia from the entire system while “Isolated (I)”
measures the inertia of the given object minus that of other factors in the system (for
example the rotary motion sensor). Isolated Inertia is the Inertia used in the % Difference
column. Additionally, Theoretical Inertia was taken from the given equations in our lab
notebook and the measurements in Table 2. Many sections are labelled “NA” due to the
fact that the system itself could not be measured, for example the theoretical inertia is
not given for the “Block + Disk” because the system of the two objects was not given an
Inertia equation in the lab notebook. Note: acceleration is in m/s², Inertia is in kg*m² and
% difference is in %. All equations and calculations expressed in this table are illustrated
in the Calculations section of this report.

4
Graphs:

Graph 1: Trial 3 which measured the tangential velocity of only the

rotary motion sensor. Note: “m” in the line of best fit represents the
tangential acceleration of the system as it is the slope of velocity.

5
Graph 2: Trial 6 which measured the
tangential velocity of the disk

Graph 3: Trial 9 which measured the

tangential velocity of the block and
the disk

6
Graph 4: Trial 12 which measured the tangential
velocity of the ring and the disk

Graph 5: Trial 15 which measured the

tangential velocity of the rod

7
 Graph 6: Trial 18 which measured the
tangential velocity of the rod and
barbell masses

Calculations
Equations:

(Trial 1+Trial 2+Trial 3)

a=
3
2 g
I experimental=M R ( −1)
a
I Isolated =I experimental−I sensor pulley

1 2
I theoretical Rod = ML
12
1 2 2
I theoretical Block = M (L +W )
12
1 2
I theoretical Disk= M R
2
2
I theoretical b̄ ell=M R

8
 1 2 2
I theoretical R ing= M (R 1 + R2 )
2

| I Isolated−I theoretical|
%Difference= x 100 %
( I Isolated + I theoretical
2 )
Calculations:

Average acceleration for Trials 1-3:

(6.98 m/s ²+6.76 m/ s ²+6.88 m/ s ²)

a= =6.8733 m/s ²
3
Experimental Inertia for the Disk:

I experimental= ( 0.1207 kg ) ( 0.0475 m )2 ( 6.8733

9.8 m/s ²
m/s ²
−1)=0.000547194 kg∗m 2

Isolated Inertia for the Disk:

I Isolated =¿

% Difference of Inertia for the Disk:

%Difference=
|( 5.40154∗10−4 ) −(1.36165∗104 )|
x 100 %=119.467191%
( )
−4 4
(5.40154∗10 )+(1.36165∗10 )
2
Theoretical Inertia Rod:

1
I theoretical Rod = ( 0.03 kg ) ( 0.381 m )2=3.62903∗10−4 kg∗m2
12
Theoretical Inertia Block:

1
I theoretical Block = ( 0.692 kg ) ( ( 0.2225 m )2 + ( 0.0833 m )2 ) =3.255003∗10−3 kg∗m2
12
Theoretical Inertia Disk:

1 2 −4 2
I theoretical Disk= ( 0.1207 kg ) ( 0.0475 m ) =1.36165∗10 kg∗m
2
Theoretical Inertia Barbell:
2 −3 2
I theoreticalBarbell =( 0.1507 kg )( 0.1905 m) =5.468941∗10 kg∗m

Theoretical Inertia Ring:

9
 1
I theoretical Ring= ( 0.4989 kg ) ( ( 0.0804 m ) + ( 0.0402 m ) ) =5.8497∗10 kg∗m
2 2 −4 2
2

Questions:

1. We created Table 4 to best reflect the experimental rotational inertia of all the given objects,
even making sure to Isolate the Inertia of individual objects by using our equation from the
calculations section of this report.
2. We calculated the theoretical values of inertia for every object, which is expressed in the
calculations section of this report and Table 4.
3. We calculated the Percent Difference between the theoretical and experimental values of
inertia in Table 4 using our equations and calculations from the calculations section of this
report.
4. The significance of errors is likely since our values were extremely small across the board.
Because we had to frame it in terms of Kilograms and meters, our objects appeared extremely
small and yielded measurements less than the thousandth place. Also, there was no way to
prevent friction of the string on the super pulley, meaning that the system was experiencing
nonconservative forces and data was lost. As well as the fact that there was no way to perfectly
align the pulley so that it was acting perfectly tangential to the rotary motion sensor. Those
factors determine the significance of error in our calculations and results.

Conclusion:

The purpose of this lab was to determine the rotational inertia of various objects and confirm
them with pre-existing equations indicating that inertia. For that to be accomplished in this experiment
we had to establish a system in which there was a universal net force acting tangentially on the object-
thus creating a universal torque and using the equation for torque to determine the inertia. Be
rearranging and combining our net force equation and torque equation we can solve for inertia and get
the inertia equation in the calculations section of this report in which gravity, tangential acceleration,
mass and radius all work to solve for inertia. Our results in Table 4 illustrate that we were successful in
measuring and isolating the rotational inertia of all the given objects. However, when comparing the
recorded values to that of the theoretical inertia we found drastic differences and cannot confirm if our
data validates those theoretical values for inertia. With % differences ranging from as little as 73% to
194% (Table 4), not much confidence can be placed on our data.

This is likely due to multiple factors. As the member of my lab group who took on most of the
calculations and coding for excel, I can state that I was not happy with the digits of our values. Because
we had to measure in terms of Kilograms and Meters our values came out incredibly small, numbers less
than the thousandth place. Luke and I rechecked our math and even did it ourselves for some trials
instead of through excel just to verify our data. Even still, the small numbers we had to deal with only
complicated equations and increased risk of error in our math. Additionally, our effort in removing all
additional factors such as the inertia of the rotary motion sensor itself helped remove errors but also
worked to complicate things further. On the bright side, the value of inertia for the rotary motion sensor
was so small that it barely made a dent in our numbers when we removed it from the experimental
inertia to get our isolated inertia values. On top of that, the format of “% Difference” gives a misleading

10
impression on the numbers. We tried multiple equations for comparing the values such as % yield and %
error, of which provided significantly smaller values than that of % difference. Overall, my team did
everything we could to reduce errors and increase accuracy in our measurements and math, but so
much could be done with values that small and the presence of friction.

11