ENGD1005
Flywheel experiment
Nabil Ibrahim
P17176766
Dr Abolfazl Zahedi
24/10/18
Objective.
To calculate the moment of inertia of a flywheel and axle by
experiment and compare it to a theoretical value.
Apparatus.
1. Flywheel assembly.
2. Cord.
3. Weights.
4. Stopwatch.
5. Metre ruler.
1 1
Figure 1. Flywheel Assembly.
Figure 2. Stopwatch.[1]
Figure 3. Metre ruler.[2]
Theory Introduction.
A flywheel is a rotating disk mounted on an axel, it is used to store
kinetic energy in mechanical form. Moment of inertia is a measure of
how the flywheel resists changes
to its motion.
By experiment, the moment of
inertia (I), can be calculated by
deriving the following equation:
I =mgh−0.5 m ( 2th ) 2
/ (N/2(N-m))
Using the analytical approach. The moment of inertia can be
calculated by deriving the equation:
I= IAxel + IF+A - IA1 - IA2
Method.
1. Measure and record flywheel and axel dimensions.
2. Attach the cord to the peg connected to the flywheel axel,
place 2.5kg of weight unto the end of the cord.
3. Rotate the flywheel to lift the weights up until they’re a metre
off the floor.
4. Release the flywheel and allow the weights to fall; record the
time taken for the weights to touch the floor. Also count the
total number of revolutions before the weights touch the floor.
5. Repeat three times for an average of the time and number of
revolutions.
6. Repeat the whole experiment with weights of 3.5kg and 4.5kg.
7. Finally calculate the moment of inertia using the equation.
Results.
Weights M1= 2.5kg M2= 3.5kg M3= 4.5kg
N= 36.5 N= 44.75 N= 51.75
Measurement 1
t= 13.14s t= 10.96s t= 9.36s
N= 35.75 N= 42 N= 51.25
Measurement 2
t=13.38s t= 11.08s t= 9.37s
N= 32.25 N=42.75 N=52.75
Measurement 3
t= 14.18s t= 11.07s t=9.38
N(avg)= 34.83 N(avg)= 43.16 N(avg)= 51.9
Average
t(avg)= 13.56 t(avg)= 11.04 t(avg)= 9.37
measurements
Moment of inertia Iexp2.5 =0.575kg m2 Iexp3.5 =0.572kg m2 Iexp4.5= 0.546kg m2
Average moment Iexp= (0.575 + 0.572 + 0.546)/ 3= 0.566kg m2
of inertia.
Key: N= number of revolutions.
t= time I= moment of inertia
Discussion.
The aim of the experiment was to calculate the moment of inertia
using an experimental approach, and an analytical approach. The
experimental approach involved doing the experiment and
calculating moment of inertia based on results, the analytical
approach involved calculations based dimension and figures taken
directly from the flywheel. The experimental value calculated was
0.566kg m2, this was slightly different to the analytical value
calculated, which was 0.79kg m2, a percentage error of -28.3% was
calculated. The reason for the differences in values was due to
systematic and random errors in both the experimental and
analytical approach. The main systematic error in the
experimental approach was that friction was not taken into
account, there was friction on the wheel bearing, there was also
friction of mass on the axel, and both of these might have led to a
loss of energy per revolution, another systematic error could be
how old the flywheel was, as time goes by the axel and wheels
start to wear out, affecting results.
The main source of random errors during the experiment were
mainly human errors, these errors were inconsistent errors
produced by the person carrying out the experiment. A few
examples of human errors include the reaction time of the person
starting and stopping the stopwatch, which means an
inconsistency in time, another human error would be the person
carrying out the experiment touching the mass and not letting it
come to a rest before releasing it, other errors include
inconsistent measurement of height and number of revolutions. If
friction is taking into account, some of these errors could be
prevented, doing the experiment multiple times and taking an
average also reduces errors.
The analytical approach also had a few errors, the dimensions and
values obtained for the calculations were based on a simplified
diagram of the flywheel and therefore were not 100% accurate.
The actual flywheel also has more complicated physical features
which were all ignored in the diagram and therefore wasn’t
included in calculations, finally friction wasn’t taken into account.
All the analytical errors above added to the overall percentage
error of the experiment. The analytical approach has fewer
sources of errors and therefore could be seen as the most reliable
approach.
Bibliography.
[1]Static.coleparmer.com, 2018. [Online]. Available:
http://static.coleparmer.com/large_images/94461_05.jpg. [Accessed: 29- Oct- 2018].
[2]Static.rapidonline.com. (2018). [online] Available at:
https://static.rapidonline.com/catalogueimages/Product/S52-0384P02WL.jpg [Accessed 29 Oct.
2018].
