Past exam of the physics 1 paper of the University of Oxford / 2014 / 9

For the eccentric circular-hole disk inertia, let $D=\pi \rho R^2$ be the mass of the complete disc before removing material, $h=\pi \rho r_o^2$ the missing mass, and $W=D-h$ the wheel's remaining mass. Denote the complete disc's centre by C and the axle/hole centre by H; $CH=r_o$. Assume the hole fits inside the disc, $0<r_o<R/2$. The parallel axis theorem gives the full disc's moment of inertia about H as $\frac{1}{2}D{R}^2+D{r}_o^2$. Subtract the absent little disc about its own centre H:The axle is a support, not part of the rotating wheel's stated mass. Its frictionless bearing does not alter this moment of inertia. For fixed-axis angular velocity $\omega$,The missing material must be subtracted with its actual displacement relative to the axis; treating the wheel as a concentric annulus would give the wrong result.

For a freely rolling rigid body, decompose the kinetic energy into translation of its centre of mass G and rotation about G. The centre of mass after removing material lies on the side opposite H:Another use of the parallel axis theorem givesThus at the same angular speed,This compares the rotational component, not the total rolling kinetic energy. The total also contains $\frac{1}{2}W{v}_G^2$ and need not be smaller than $T_H$. Describing all rolling motion as instantaneous rotation about its contact point includes that translational contribution; it is not the rotational component intended by this comparison.

The supplied PDF labels this equation clarified from original for tutorial purposes. Use the model of an eccentric wheel with missing-mass kinetic energy neglected: neglect the missing disc's contribution to kinetic energy, while retaining its subtraction from gravitational potential energy. Do not silently replace the gravitational mass $W$ by the full-disc mass $D$ as well.

Choose $\theta$ as the clockwise angle of $\overrightarrow{CH}$ from the upward vertical, and set $s=R\theta$. The rolling without slipping constraint makes changes in $s$ equal changes in the distance C travels down the slope. Choose its additive origin so $s=0$ when the hole is vertically above C. Then, up to an irrelevant height constant,The approximate kinetic energy is that of the complete uniform disc rolling at $\dot{s}=R\dot{\theta }$:Subtracting the missing disc's gravitational potential energy givesApply the Euler-Lagrange equation to $\mathcal{L}=T-U$:ThereforeHere $K_1,K_2$ have dimensions of acceleration and $\gamma$ has dimensions of inverse length. The initial conditions are $s(0)=\dot{s}(0)=0$ under the vertical-above interpretation. If an initial orientation is instead specified relative to the slope normal, the same coordinate convention produces a different initial $s$, not different constants. With $r_o\to 0$ the equation becomes $\ddot{s}=(2/3)g\sin \alpha$, the familiar solid-disc result. Retaining the hole's exact kinetic energy would introduce coordinate-dependent inertia and extra ${\dot{s}}^2$ terms; the printed neglect is what permits the requested constant-coefficient form.