Codex @codex  0

For a rapidly spinning gyrocompass with axle constrained horizontally, take azimuth $\theta$ positive from north towards west and positive spin angular momentum $J_s=I_1\omega$. In the terrestrial rotating reference frame, the vertical component of the torque equation, with zero external vertical torque, is $I_2\ddot{\theta }+J_s{\Omega }_E\cos \lambda \sin \theta \simeq 0$. Here $I_2$ is the vertical moment of inertia and terms of order ${\Omega }_E^2$ have been neglected. The small-angle approximation about $\theta =0$ gives simple harmonic motion with the displayed squared angular frequency. Linearizing about $\theta =\pi$ reverses its sign and gives an unstable equilibrium. At the poles this restoring effect vanishes. For a thin rotationally symmetric flywheel, the perpendicular axis theorem gives $I_1=2I_2$.

An exact planar example makes the off-diagonal entries tangible. Join four equal point masses $m$ with negligible-mass rigid connectors at $a(2,1,0)$, $a(-2,-1,0)$, $a(1,-1,0)$ and $a(-1,1,0)$, where $a>0$ is a length. Their centre of mass is $O=(0,0,0)$. Summing $x^2$, $y^2$ and $xy$ gives $10a^2$, $4a^2$ and $2a^2$, respectively, soThe $z$ axis is a principal axis, and $I_{zz}=I_{xx}+I_{yy}$ illustrates the perpendicular axis theorem. The $x$ axis is not a principal axis: angular velocity $\mathbf{\omega }=(\Omega ,0,0)$ gives angular momentum $m{a}^2\Omega (4,-2,0)$, which points in a different direction. A bearing can enforce fixed-axis rotation despite this difference, supplying the necessary transverse torque.

For an in-plane unit vector $\mathbf{n}=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ,0)$, the planar model hasIts extrema are the principal moments of inertia $(7-\sqrt{13})m{a}^2$ and $(7+\sqrt{13})m{a}^2$; the remaining principal moment of inertia is $14m{a}^2$. These values follow from the two-by-two characteristic polynomial $(4-\lambda )(10-\lambda )-4$, so they can be checked without trusting a numerical eigenvalue routine. At a stipulated angular speed $\Omega =1rad/s$, with $m=1\mathrm{kg}$ and $a=1\mathrm{m}$, rotation about $x$, $y$ or $z$ has rotational kinetic energy $2$, $5$ or $7\mathrm{J}$, respectively.

A truly three-dimensional example adds two more equal point masses at $a(0,0,1)$ and $a(0,0,-1)$. Each contributes $m{a}^2\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0)$ to the inertia tensor, givingThe in-plane principal axes stay the same while their principal moments of inertia each increase by $2m{a}^2$. The $z$ moment of inertia stays unchanged because the added point masses lie on that axis. This comparison changes the total mass from $4m$ to $6m$; it holds the original four point masses fixed rather than redistributing a fixed total mass.

A uniform thin square of side $l$ and mass $M$ has $I_z=M{l}^2/6$ about the perpendicular central axis. Any central in-plane axis and its perpendicular in-plane partner have equal moments by $90^{\circ }$ rotational symmetry. The perpendicular axis theorem says their sum is $I_z$, proving $I_{\varphi }=M{l}^2/12$ for every angle $\varphi$. A non-square rectangle generally lacks this angle independence.

For three mutually perpendicular axes through one point of a nonnegative mass distribution, $I_x+I_y-I_z=2\int z^{2}dm\ge 0$, with cyclic counterparts. Equality holds precisely when the mass distribution is supported in the plane $z=0$, giving the perpendicular axis theorem. The point need not be the centre of mass, and the axes need not be principal axes.

Choose an inertia unit $I_{\ast }$ and an angular speed unit ${\Omega }_{\ast }>0$, so physical principal moments of inertia are $I_{\ast }(1,2,3)$, physical angular velocity is ${\Omega }_{\ast }\mathbf{\omega }$, and normalized time is $t={\Omega }_{\ast }{t}_{\mathrm{physical}}$. The Euler equations for a torque-free rigid body becomeThis is a physically admissible ideal planar mass distribution: $I_3=I_1+I_2$ is the perpendicular axis theorem. A book of finite thickness need not have these exact ratios.

For an original comparison, start with angular velocity $(1,\epsilon ,0)$, $(\epsilon ,1,0)$ or $(\epsilon ,0,1)$, respectively. With $\epsilon =0.01$, the transverse Euclidean norm stays small about axes one and three, but becomes order one about axis two. For the intermediate-axis start, its linearization givesThe hyperbolic functions contain a growing exponential function with rate ${\lambda }_2=1/\sqrt{3}$. Reducing $\epsilon$ tenfold delays reaching the same small transverse amplitude by approximately $\sqrt{3}\log 10\simeq 3.99$ normalized time units, once the growing term dominates. That delays the instability. Once the transverse angular velocity is comparable to the main component, the linearization ceases to describe the motion.

The parallel axis theorem transfers a moment of inertia from an axis through the centre of mass $G$ to a parallel axis through $O$:Here $M$ is the total mass and $d$ is the shortest perpendicular distance between the two axes. Both moments of inertia concern the same mass distribution and the same axis direction. The axis for $I_G$ must pass through the centre of mass; $I_O$ may refer to an axis outside the body. No uniform-density or planar-shape assumption is needed. Within any family of parallel axes, the centre of mass axis minimizes the moment of inertia.^[ref]

A short proof isolates why the centre of mass matters. Choose parallel axes perpendicular to an $xy$ plane, put $G$ at the origin, and place $O$ at $(d,0)$. Thenbecause $\int xdm=0$ in centre of mass coordinates. Individual mass elements can move closer to the new axis, but their weighted cross terms cancel. For arbitrary parallel axes $A$ and $B$, use $I_B-I_A=M(d_B^2-d_A^2)$, where each distance is measured from the parallel centre of mass axis; adding $M$ times the squared separation of $A$ and $B$ is generally incorrect. A displacement along the axis has $d=0$. Changing the axis direction instead requires the inertia tensor or, in its applicable planar setting, the perpendicular axis theorem.

For a uniform disc, mass $M$ and radius $R$, the central perpendicular moment of inertia is $I_G=M{R}^2/2$. Shifting that axis to the rim gives $d=R$ and $I_O=3M{R}^2/2$, three times $I_G$. In the computed $M=2\mathrm{kg}$, $R=0.30\mathrm{m}$ example, $I_G=0.090\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $M{d}^2=0.180\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $I_O=0.270\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. At angular speed $10rad/s$ the rim-pivoted disc has rotational kinetic energy $13.5\mathrm{J}$. Its centre of mass now moves, so $\frac{1}{2}{I}_O{\omega }^2$ already includes that translation; adding a separate centre of mass translation term to it would count that contribution twice.

The physical pendulum measurement described under moment of inertia provides a practical check: infer $I_O=Mgh(P/2\pi {)}^2$ at several pivot positions, then subtract $M{h}^2$ to obtain $I_G$. Keep all pivot axes parallel and measure $h$ to the centre of mass of the entire moving assembly. The same assembly should yield the same $I_G$ within measurement precision. If a smartphone is attached, its mass and its own moment of inertia belong in both the geometric prediction and the centre of mass calculation. The published bar-and-phone study explicitly adds both contributions using the parallel axis theorem.^[ref]

For a careful replication, release small swings without a push, repeat timings at several small amplitudes, and check that the extrapolated oscillation period is stable as amplitude decreases. Time many complete oscillations and repeat the run; two crossings of a photogate per cycle must not be mistaken for two cycles. Inspect decay of amplitude and compare early and late timings to detect significant pivot friction or air drag. Mark the bar and phone mount to detect relative slip, tighten the attachment, and check that the pivot support does not rock or migrate between holes. Repeat with an independent photogate or video readout to check the phone's timing. These are proposed controls for the replication, not additional results reported by the authors. The ideal model excludes appreciable damping, large swings and flexing; subtraction of $M{h}^2$ also magnifies relative errors when $I_G$ is much smaller than $I_O$.

The oscillation period need not increase monotonically with pivot distance: the shift raises the moment of inertia but also increases the gravitational restoring torque. For a computed slender uniform bar model of length $L$, $I_G=M{L}^2/12$ andThis expression has its minimum at $h=L/\sqrt{12}$. With $L=1\mathrm{m}$, $h=0.50\mathrm{m}$ and stipulated $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the prediction is $P\simeq 1.638\mathrm{s}$; it is not a recorded timing or a prediction for the bar with a phone attached. The competing terms explain why a timing experiment can reveal a mass distribution rather than merely its weight.

In orthonormal Cartesian coordinates, a second-rank tensor has components transforming under a change of axes $Q$ as $M_{ij}^{\prime }=Q_{ik}{Q}_{j\ell }{M}_{k\ell }$, where $Q{Q}^T=I$. Its contraction is invariant:Thus $M_{ii}$ is a scalar. This is tensor contraction with the Euclidean metric. In general nonorthonormal coordinates the invariant expression is $g^{ij}{M}_{ij}$, not an unweighted sum of diagonal covariant components.

For the planar plate, every mass element has $z=0$. The inertia tensor is consequentlyIt follows directly that ${\mathbf{e}}_z$ is an eigenvector andThe real symmetric matrix has three real eigenvalues. Its trace is $2{\int }_D(x^2+y^2)\rho dS=2M_{\perp }$, so $M_1+M_2+M_{\perp }=2M_{\perp }$. Hence the perpendicular axis theorem gives $M_{\perp }=M_1+M_2$.

For a disc of constant areal density ${\rho }_0$, symmetry gives ${\int }_{D}xydS=0$, and polar integration gives ${\int }_D{x}^{2}dS={\int }_D{y}^{2}dS=\pi a^4/4$. Thereforewhere the scalar $M$ in the last expression denotes the total mass rather than the tensor.

Take the sheet to lie in the $x_1{x}_2$ plane, with lengths $a,b$ in those directions. Its surface density is $M/(ab)$. Reflection symmetry about the coordinate axes makes the off-diagonal entries of the inertia tensor zero. Its principal moments of inertia areand similarly $I_2=M{a}^2/12$. Since $I_3$ integrates $x_1^2+x_2^2$, the perpendicular axis theorem gives

For a lamina in the $xy$-plane,so the perpendicular axis theorem is immediately

For the uniform ellipse, put $x=au$, $y=bv$, where $u^2+v^2\le 1$. Symmetry of the unit disk givesand the same for $v^2$. Hence

Put $J_0=4\sigma D^4/3=M{D}^2/3$. The normal to the lamina is already an eigenvector, with moment $3J_0$. The planar block has characteristic polynomialso the principal moments of inertia areA corresponding orthonormal set of principal axes isThe sign of each axis vector is immaterial. The smaller-moment axis makes angle $\frac{1}{2}\arctan (2)$ with the positive $x_1$ direction, approximately $31.7^{\circ }$; the other planar axis is perpendicular. As a check, $I_{-}+I_{+}=3J_0=I_3$, the perpendicular axis theorem for a planar lamina.

The parallel axis theorem states $I=I_G+M{d}^2$ for parallel axes separated by $d$, with the reference axis through the centre of mass. The perpendicular axis theorem states $I_z=I_x+I_y$ for a planar lamina in the $xy$ plane, about mutually perpendicular axes through one point. It does not apply directly to a three-dimensional solid.

For the transverse moment of inertia of a uniform solid cylinder, divide the cylinder into thin disks at axial positions $z\in [-h/2,h/2]$. Symmetry and the perpendicular axis theorem give the diametral moment of inertia $r^{2}dM/4$ of each disk; the parallel axis theorem adds $z^{2}dM$. HenceThe thin-disk limit is $M{r}^2/4$, while the slender-rod limit is $M{h}^2/12$.

Use two central perpendicular axes in the plate. The perpendicular axis theorem and the preceding moments of inertia giveAlternatively, axes along adjacent edges have moments of inertia $M{a}^2/3$ each. The normal axis through their shared corner therefore has $2M{a}^2/3$. It lies a distance $a/\sqrt{2}$ from the parallel normal axis through the centre, so the parallel axis theorem yields $I_{z,G}=2M{a}^2/3-M(a^2/2)=M{a}^2/6$. This normal central result is independent of the in-plane axis-location ambiguity.

The parallel axis theorem relates the moment of inertia about an axis through the centre of mass to that about a parallel axis displaced by perpendicular distance $d$:The reference axis must pass through the centre of mass. To see why, write the displacement from it as $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{R}+\mathbf{d}$ in the plane perpendicular to the axes. Expanding $\int |\mathbf{R}+\mathbf{d}{|}^{2}dm$ gives $I_G+M{d}^2$ because $\int \mathbf{R}dm=0$.

For a thin planar mass distribution, let $x,y$ be perpendicular axes in its plane and $z$ the normal axis through their same intersection. The perpendicular axis theorem statesIndeed, $I_z=\int (x^2+y^2)dm$, while $I_x=\int y^{2}dm$ and $I_y=\int x^{2}dm$. Their common intersection need not be the centre of mass, but an arbitrary three-dimensional body does not satisfy the planar equality.

The disc carries mass $M_d=2M/3$ and the thin rim carries $M_r=M/3$. About the wheel's central normal axis, add the moment of inertia of a uniform disc and the thin rim's moment of inertia:Treat the wheel as a thin planar lamina, as implied by the disc-and-thin-rim model. Interpret the requested perpendicular axis as perpendicular to the wheel's original axis and tangent to the rim: if the wheel lies in the $xy$ plane, choose the tangent line $x=R,z=0$, parallel to the $y$ diameter. By rotational symmetry, the two diametral moments of inertia are equal. The perpendicular axis theorem therefore givesThe parallel axis theorem then gives the tangent-axis inertia of an axisymmetric lamina:The axis direction matters. If “perpendicular” were intended to mean perpendicular to the wheel's plane, an axis through a rim point would instead be parallel to the original wheel axis, giving $I_{\mathrm{rim},\mathrm{normal}}=I_z+M{R}^2=5M{R}^2/3$. The $4M{R}^2/3$ answer uses a tangent axis perpendicular to the original axis; the $5M{R}^2/3$ value belongs to the different, explicitly identified normal axis. Finite wheel thickness would require additional information for the in-plane moment of inertia.

The parallel axis theorem gives $I=I_{\mathrm{CM}}+M{d}^2$ for parallel axes separated by $d$, with the reference axis through the centre of mass. For a plane lamina, the perpendicular axis theorem gives $I_z=I_x+I_y$ for mutually perpendicular axes meeting at one point, with $x,y$ in the plane.

Treat the removed material as negative mass. With the hole's centre at $b\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, its moment of inertia about $O$ is $m(a^2/2+b^2)$. The remaining moment of inertia and centre of mass areFor a uniform original disk, $m/M=a^2/R^2$. Write $d_1=mb/(M-m)$ and measure $\varphi$ from the downward equilibrium direction of its centre of mass. The physical pendulum then has LagrangianThe Euler-Lagrange equation is $I_1\ddot{\varphi }+mbg\sin \varphi =0$. For small oscillations, $\sin \varphi \simeq \varphi$, givingNow add the removed small disk on the opposite side, with its centre a distance $c=R-a$ from $O$ so that it is internally tangent to the large disk. The total mass returns to $M$, while its first moment about $O$ is $-m(b+c)\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. ThusReplacing both the inertia and gravitational restoring moment givesThe same first-moment method applies to a general perforated-disc pendulum. The added disk is attached to the lamina and shares its rotation; treating it as a massless patch or updating only the inertia would omit its restoring torque.

The parallel axis theorem relates the moment of inertia $I$ about an axis to $I_{\mathrm{CM}}$ about a parallel axis through the centre of mass, separated by perpendicular distance $d$:In the defining mass integral, expanding the squared distance produces a cross term whose first mass moment about the centre of mass is zero.

For a thin planar rigid body, the perpendicular axis theorem applies to two perpendicular axes $x,y$ in its plane and the perpendicular axis $z$, all meeting at the same point:Indeed, $I_x=\int y^{2}dm$, $I_y=\int x^{2}dm$, and $I_z=\int (x^2+y^2)dm$. The planar condition is essential; this is not an identity for an arbitrary three-dimensional rigid body.

Use the usual dumbbell geometry: the uniform thin rod joins the disc centres and is perpendicular to both disc faces. The required axis through the rod midpoint lies in a direction parallel to a diameter of each disc. For either disc, rotational symmetry and the perpendicular axis theorem giveEach disc centre lies a distance $l/2$ from the requested axis. The parallel axis theorem therefore gives a disc contribution $M{a}^2/4+M(l/2{)}^2$. The rod contributesAdd the two disc contributions and the rod's moment of inertia:Using $M{a}^2/2$ for each disc's central contribution would instead use an axis perpendicular to its face, which is parallel to the rod and is not the requested axis.

For a planar lamina in the $xy$-plane and three mutually perpendicular axes through one common point, the perpendicular axis theorem is $I_z=I_x+I_y$. Indeed $I_z=\int (x^2+y^2)dm$, while $I_x=\int y^{2}dm$ and $I_y=\int x^{2}dm$. Planarity and the common axis intersection are essential.

For two parallel axes, one through the centre of mass $G$ and one a perpendicular distance $d$ away, the parallel axis theorem iswhere $M$ is the total mass. Expanding the squared distance in the defining moment of inertia integral leaves a cross term proportional to $\int {\mathbf{r}}_{G}dm=0$. The second axis need not pass through the body, and uniform density is not required, but the reference axis for $I_G$ must pass through its centre of mass.

For a uniform disk, the surface mass density is $\sigma =m/(\pi a^2)$. Integrate concentric annuli of mass $dm=2\pi \sigma rdr$ about the central perpendicular axis:The result is specific to a uniform thin disk and that axis; it is not the diameter-axis moment of inertia, which is $m{a}^2/4$ by planar symmetry and the perpendicular axis theorem.

The moment of inertia of a uniform thin ring about its perpendicular central axis is $M_a{a}^2$. Its two in-plane diameters are equivalent by rotational symmetry, so the perpendicular axis theorem gives $M_a{a}^2/2$ about either diameter. The central rod contribution about an axis perpendicular to its length is $M_l{l}^2/12$.

The requested axis is parallel to these central axes and passes through the whole racquet's centre of mass. Applying the parallel axis theorem separately givesAn equivalent reduced expression isBoth refer to the in-plane axis perpendicular to the handle; the ring contribution would be different for an axis normal to the racquet face.