Everything I needed in less then 12 minutes. Unbelievable

He really meant it when he said "2 minutes"

Making me want to stop studying and grab my guitar lol but Definitely the best video I've found so far for this material.

Great video.

You are the best! Thanks

For me, it seemed more confusing to use the area moment of inertia equation to begin with. Otherwise, very well explained. Thanks

I have some doubts... I'm sorry if I'm wrong.... Y did u take limits as l/2 to l/2? It should be l/2 and - l/2?

takpaham la laju sangat

This is a really, really good video.

i'm in my fourth year of undergrad, and something like this that i learned in freshman year can be really hazy, especially when it wasn't taught right the first time. you are amazing and have completely covered everything i needed without any fuss and any difficult explanation. excellent video, thank you so much!

FINALLY! I understand moment of inertia!

great video !!!

Thank You Professor!

Very good explanation 💜

Some of the questions i tried they tend to neglect the md^2 after the mass moment inertia. why?

OK, how would you calculate the total inertial force of the sled if acceleration is X , sled of mass y and trust or push is Z

Yay, found it!

Cool shirt!

doesn't the integral give ML^3/3 and not /12 ?

As great as this lecture is, I still must stress the fact that in the example he's presenting, the diameter of the rod is ASSUMED to be MUCH LESS than its length L. If this were not the case (which could very well be true for some very thick, shorter rods) we would have to take into account the variation of the y-coordinate as well (the axis in and out of the whiteboard) for each of the small "mass cubes" of infinitesimal mass dm (also note that the z-component is parallel to the axis by my choice of coordinates, and this component of the axis-mass cube distance obviously does NOT contribute to the moment of inertia). By not making the aforementioned assumption we now instead have a volume integral which needs solving, which is quite messy by comparison. Luckily though it can readily be seen from a purely mathematical standpoint that for thin, long rods the sum (i.e. integral) involving y is much smaller as compared to the contributions of the "x-sum." Thus, for such geometries one can neglect these small deviations in y-coordinates and we effectively go back to the "slices" in the x-direction, as shown in the video. End of message, cheers!

Why is rho considered mass/unit length?