Why Is the Pendulum's Center of Mass Calculation Confusing?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the center of mass (COM) for a system consisting of a rod and a disc. The equation M(L-l) = m(ℓ - x) is central to understanding the relationship between the masses and their distances from the pivot. Participants clarify that the equation must hold true for specific values of l, leading to the derived formula l = (L/2)(2M + m)/(M + m). This formula accurately represents the position of the center of mass of the combined system, resolving initial confusion regarding the equality of the two sides of the equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of center of mass concepts
  • Familiarity with moment calculations in physics
  • Knowledge of algebraic manipulation of equations
  • Basic principles of rotational dynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of center of mass equations in composite systems
  • Learn about balancing moments in static equilibrium
  • Explore the implications of mass distribution on center of mass calculations
  • Investigate real-world applications of center of mass in engineering and physics
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, particularly those focusing on mechanics, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to center of mass and moment calculations.

CNS92
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Why is the attachment true? (It's from my notes)

Homework Equations



General centre of mass equations

The Attempt at a Solution



Really not sure how the lecturer did this. It's quoted as if it's obvious but I don't see it at all, this has been annoying me for a while.

M(L-l) is obviously the moment of the ball about the center of masss.. I'm not sure where the other two terms come from really though.
 

Attachments

  • hm.png
    hm.png
    8.3 KB · Views: 483
Physics news on Phys.org
The two sides of your equation don't look equal to me; you are missing two terms.
 
tms said:
The two sides of your equation don't look equal to me; you are missing two terms.

I'm not sure what you mean.. the equation given in the image is the equation the lecturer claims the distance l must satisfy. He then rearranged for l and uses it later in the notes. I don't really know how he got what's in the attached image at all. What do you think it should be?
 
RK7 said:
I'm not sure what you mean..

I mean what I said. You have an equation. The two sides of the equation are not equal.

the equation given in the image is the equation the lecturer claims the distance l must satisfy. He then rearranged for l and uses it later in the notes. I don't really know how he got what's in the attached image at all. What do you think it should be?

I think something is missing, such as the length of the rod (or whatever m is).
 
tms said:
I mean what I said. You have an equation. The two sides of the equation are not equal.

I think something is missing, such as the length of the rod (or whatever m is).

They aren't equal in general, only for a specific value of l which is found by rearranging what's in the attached image to give l=\frac{(2M+m)L}{2(M+m)}
i.e. from this equation which the lecturer has said must hold, we can find the position of the centre of mass of the system.

My problem is that I'm not sure why the equation given must hold since I can only see where one term is from.

To be clear:
M is the mass of the disc on the end of the rod
m is the mass of the rod
L is the distance from the pivot to the centre of mass of the disc
l is the distance from the pivot to the centre of mass of the combined system

(L-l) is the distance from the COM of the disc to the COM of the system so it looks like the M(L-l) term is related to the moment of the disc about the centre of mass.
 
Sorry, I got a sign wrong. Ignore what I said.
 
You know that for each mass, the rod and the disk, the mass times the distance to the center of mass is the same:
M(L - \ell) = m(\ell - x), where x is the (unknown) location of m's center of mass. Now take the equation in your graphic, collect all the terms in m on the right, and factor out the m. Set what is left on the right equal to \ell - x, and solve for x. The result contradicts the drawing as I understand it, but the drawing may be wrong, or the exact problem may have been stated differently. I don't know where that stuff on the right comes from, but it leads to a correct result, modulo the drawing.
 
tms said:
You know that for each mass, the rod and the disk, the mass times the distance to the center of mass is the same:
M(L - \ell) = m(\ell - x), where x is the (unknown) location of m's center of mass. Now take the equation in your graphic, collect all the terms in m on the right, and factor out the m. Set what is left on the right equal to \ell - x, and solve for x. The result contradicts the drawing as I understand it, but the drawing may be wrong, or the exact problem may have been stated differently. I don't know where that stuff on the right comes from, but it leads to a correct result, modulo the drawing.

In the end I got it. I have no idea what the lecturer was doing but I get the equivalent result by balancing the moments:
M(L-l)=m(\frac{L}{2}-(L-l))<br /> \Rightarrow<br /> l = \frac{L}{2} . \frac{2M+m}{M+m}
where M(L-l) is the ball's moment about the COM and \frac{L}{2}-(L-l) is the distance from the COM of the rod to the COM of the combined body.

Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K