Rotational Equilibrium and Dynamics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the distinction between the centre of gravity (C.G.) and the centre of mass (C.M.), emphasizing that while they may coincide in a uniform gravitational field, they are fundamentally different concepts. Dr. Donald Luttermoser highlights the importance of the centre of action in torque calculations, providing a formula for determining it in both 2-D and 3-D scenarios. He critiques the practical utility of the centre of gravity in engineering contexts, advocating for the use of the centre of pressure in statics. Relevant resources, including Hyperphysics links on moments of inertia, are also provided for further exploration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of torque and force vectors in physics
  • Familiarity with the concepts of centre of mass and centre of gravity
  • Basic knowledge of rotational dynamics and statics
  • Ability to interpret mathematical formulas related to physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical derivation of the centre of action in 2-D and 3-D systems
  • Learn about the applications of the centre of pressure in engineering statics
  • Explore the concept of moments of inertia through the provided Hyperphysics resources
  • Investigate the implications of varying gravitational fields on the centre of gravity and centre of mass
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics and engineering, particularly those focused on mechanics, statics, and dynamics, will benefit from this discussion.

Messages
19,910
Reaction score
10,917
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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K