Rotational Equilibrium and Dynamics

Click For Summary
Dr. Donald Luttermoser incorrectly equates the center of gravity (C.G.) with the center of mass (C.M.), despite their distinct definitions. The center of gravity is the point where gravitational force acts, which is crucial for calculating torques, especially in 2-D scenarios. While C.G. and C.M. coincide in a uniform gravitational field, they can differ in varying fields. In 3-D cases, a common center of action can be defined only if the net force and torque are perpendicular. The concept of C.G. is deemed less useful in practical applications compared to the center of pressure, particularly in engineering statics.
Messages
19,840
Reaction score
10,854
Author: Dr. Donald Luttermoser of East Tennessee State University
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Lutermoser does a grievous error here, in conflating centre of gravity with centre of mass.

Although he has the correct definition of centre of gravity (i.e, as the point where we might consider the weight concentrated (if such a point exists)), he sets it equivalent to the centre of mass, which is totally differently defined!

The centre of gravity is just where the force of gravity can be considered to ACT.
Where a force acts, is of course, mainly of importance when computing torques, and for a 2-D situation, in which direction vectors and forces are coplanar, net torque \tau and net force \vec{F}=(F_{x},F_{y}) we define the centre of action \vec{r}_{c.a}=(x_{c.a},y_{c.a}) to be the that point with least magnitude that satisfies:
x_{c.a}F_{y}-y_{c.a}F_{x}=\tau
(The origin being the point we compute the torque with respect to, say C.M)

This yields:
\vec{r}_{c.a}=\frac{\tau}{F_{x}^{2}+F_{y}^{2}}(F_{y},-F_{x})

For a uniform gravitational field, C.M and C.G. (that is, c.a.) coincides, but not necessarily with a varying field.


Finally, in the 3-D case, we must assume that the net force&torque are perpendicular vectors in order to be able to define a common centre of action.
If that is the case, we have, as above:
\vec{r}_{c.a}=\frac{\vec{F}\times\vec{\tau}}{||\vec{F}||^{2}}

I'd like to close with saying that I don't regard concepts like "centre of gravity" to be particularly useful, in that the positin of C.G. depends on such factors as the orientation of the object and which point we happen to compute the torque with respect to.

In engineering, particularly in STATICS, the concept of "centre of pressure" has proven useful, though.
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K