Find CM of Round Bottom Cone | Centre of Mass Problem

Gogsey
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
Is there anyway of breaking up the parts of an a round spherical bottomed cone into a regular cone and a hemisphere?

I can find the CM of a cone with its tip on the origin, and a hemisphere with its flat bottom in the x-y plane. Can I break the round bottomed cone up into these 2 parts? How would I go about combining them to find the CM of the round bottomed cone?

The z-axis goes though the centre of the round bottomed cone lengthways.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, superposition can be used to find the CM of the object. Find the CM of the hemisphere then find the CM of the cone using a common coordinate system. These two locations can treated as point masses then be used to find the CM of the object.
 
Does that mean I can but the flat bottom of the hemisphere at the origin, and the tip of the cone at the origin? Or do I have to put say the cone tip at the origin, and the flat bottom of the hemisphere at the top of the cone?

So then how do I find the combined CM for the object?
 
It does not matter where you place the origin but a convenient location would be where the cone and hemisphere meet and intersect with the line of symmetry. To answer your second question, how would you find the CM of two point objects?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top