Centre of mass of a thin hollow conical shell of height h, measured from the base.
Result
The CM of a thin uniform hollow conical shell (open base) of height h lies at 3h from the base:
ycm=3h
Derivation
Let the cone have half-angle β (so base radius =htanβ=R). Place apex at origin, axis along y.
Divide into thin horizontal rings at height y from apex:
- Ring radius: r=ytanβ
- Slant height element: dl=dy/cosβ
- Ring circumference: 2πytanβ
- Ring area: 2πytanβ⋅cosβdy
- Mass: dm=σ⋅cosβ2πytanβdy
Total slant surface area: πRl=πRcosβh where l=cosβh is the slant height.
So σ=πRh/cosβM=πRhMcosβ
Height above base: ybase=h−y (since y is measured from apex)
ycm,base=M1∫0h(h−y)⋅σ⋅cosβ2πytanβdy
Using tanβ/cosβ=R/h⋅1/cos2β... this gets messy. Use a cleaner variable: let y be height above base (0 at base, h at apex).
At height y above base, ring radius =R(1−y/h) (linearly decreasing to 0 at apex).
Ring slant area: 2πR(1−y/h)⋅cosβdy
Surface density: σ=πR⋅h/cosβM=πRhMcosβ
dm=πRhMcosβ⋅cosβ2πR(1−y/h)dy=h2M(1−hy)dy
ycm=M1∫0hy⋅h2M(1−hy)dy=h2∫0h(y−hy2)dy
=h2[2h2−3h2]=h2⋅6h2=3h
ycm=3h
Note on the h/3 result
Both the triangular lamina and the hollow cone give CM at h/3 from the base. This is not coincidence — both have mass distributions that decrease linearly to zero at the apex, giving the same weighted average.
Remember
Hollow cone → $h/3$ from base. Solid cone → $h/4$ from base. The solid cone's CM is lower because it has volume mass (including near the base) pulling it down, whereas the hollow cone has only surface mass.