I Lower center of mass creates more stability so how do you explain moving the center of mass upwards increases stability?

AI Thread Summary
In martial arts, raising the arms during movements like kicking shifts the center of mass (COM) upwards, which might seem counterintuitive for stability. However, this action increases the moment of inertia, allowing for better balance control. Maintaining balance relies on adjusting the center of gravity (COG), which is facilitated by arm movement. While a higher COM can reduce stability, it can also lengthen the natural period of oscillation, making movements smoother. Ultimately, the interplay between balance and COG adjustment is crucial for effective performance in martial arts.
John3022
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
How is it possible that moving the center of mass upwards increases stability and not the opposite?
When you are doing certain movements in martial arts like kicking, you bring your arms up in order to balance yourself. Bringing your arms upwards also moves the center of mass (COM) upwards but if the COM is higher than the position should be less stable and not more stable. How do you explain the stabilizing effect of moving your COM upwards?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are increasing your moment of inertia.
 
John3022 said:
How do you explain the stabilizing effect of moving your COM upwards?
Have you ever seen a wire walker (e.g. the Great Wallenda) stroll across a wire with his arms down by his side? BALANCE matters more than COG.

EDIT: Hm ... that was not well put. Yes, balance is what's important, BUT ... you maintain balance by changing you COG, which you cannot do if your arms are by your sides. You have to be able to move your arms around to maintain your COG where it needs to be for you to not fall over.
 
Last edited:
John3022 said:
When you are doing certain movements in martial arts like kicking, you bring your arms up in order to balance yourself.
Could you show us a specific movement?
How high are the arms brought up (shoulder level or way above)?
 
John3022 said:
How do you explain the stabilizing effect of moving your COM upwards?
Moment of inertia.
For a small boat, raising the centre of mass, lengthens the natural period of oscillation, and so makes it more comfortable, but reduces stability.

Longer pendulums swing slower.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top