Finding the center of mass of a piecewise function

Click For Summary
To find the center of mass (COM) of a piecewise function, the shape can be divided into simpler components like parallelograms and triangles. While calculating the COM for each shape is possible, integrating the equations directly may provide a more accurate result. The discussion emphasizes that even if the shapes are not perfect parallelograms, they can still be treated as point masses for COM calculations. There is some confusion regarding how integration relates to finding the COM versus just calculating area. Clarification is needed on the necessary multipliers for the integration process to accurately determine the COM.
JorkThePork
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Find the center of mass of the "lightning bolt" shaped piecewise function as shown below (or in the desmos project: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/g6crwsecp1)
Relevant Equations
Xcm = A^-1 * ∫ a b x * (f(x) - g(x)) d x

Ycm = A^-1 * ∫ a b .5((f(x)^2 - g(x)^2) d x
desmos-graph.png
I understand that I can divide this shape into a few parallelograms and a triangle and calculate the center of mass of each, but am confused as to what I should do after that. My physics teacher also wants us to use integrals, but I'm assuming I can calculate the COM of each parallelogram and triangle by simply integrating.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can find the CM of the two parallelograms and the half-parallelogram which will give you 3 point masses at the locations of these CMs. Then you can find the CM of the 3 point masses the usual way.
 
kuruman said:
You can find the CM of the two parallelograms and the half-parallelogram which will give you 3 point masses at the locations of these CMs. Then you can find the CM of the 3 point masses the usual way.
the two seemingly big parallelograms actually are not parallelograms because of how I designed the lightning bolt (the equations I used are here https://www.desmos.com/calculator/g6crwsecp1). However, I could break the shape up into 2 big parallelograms, 2 very thin parallelograms, and a triangle. I'm assuming I could still then find the CM of the 5 point masses the usual way.
 
JorkThePork said:
the two seemingly big parallelograms actually are not parallelograms because of how I designed the lightning bolt (the equations I used are here https://www.desmos.com/calculator/g6crwsecp1). However, I could break the shape up into 2 big parallelograms, 2 very thin parallelograms, and a triangle. I'm assuming I could still then find the CM of the 5 point masses the usual way.
Yes, you can carve it up into simple non overlapping shapes, but since you have equations why not just integrate them and add the (signed) results?
 
haruspex said:
Yes, you can carve it up into simple non overlapping shapes, but since you have equations why not just integrate them and add the (signed) results?
Sorry, I’m a little confused how this would give me the center of mass. wouldn’t this just give the area?
 
JorkThePork said:
Sorry, I’m a little confused how this would give me the center of mass. wouldn’t this just give the area?
So what do you need to multiply the expressions by before integrating?
 
Last edited:
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
993
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K