Finding Projection of Force onto line

In summary: This is not the equation they're looking for. They want the equation for the magnitude of the projection of a vector onto another. They are looking for the formula for the projection of a vector onto another. In this problem, you have a vector (A) and a vector (B) that you are trying to find the magnitude of the projection of onto another vector (C). The equation they are looking for is: F_{}parallel = Fcosθ.
  • #1
Bluestribute
194
0

Homework Statement


Determine the magnitude of the projection of force F = 700N along the u axis.

Hibbler.ch2.p121.jpg



Homework Equations


Cosθ = (A • B)/(||A|| * ||B||)

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm guessing I have to use the above equation, but my problem is finding the B vector. A is easy enough (<-2, 4, 4> I believe), but what about that B? Or am I thinking of this in the wrong way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Bluestribute said:

Homework Statement


Determine the magnitude of the projection of force F = 700N along the u axis.

Hibbler.ch2.p121.jpg



Homework Equations


Cosθ = (A • B)/(||A|| * ||B||)

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm guessing I have to use the above equation, but my problem is finding the B vector. A is easy enough (<-2, 4, 4> I believe), but what about that B? Or am I thinking of this in the wrong way?

You have a generic formula for ##\cos\theta##. What two vectors are A and B in your problem?
 
  • #3
Well, I'd say A would be from the origin to A. I have no idea what B would be as there's only two lines, one point, and no other coordinates besides for the beam.
 
  • #4
It looks to me like the "B" vector would be a vector from the origin along the direction u.
 
  • #5
Bluestribute said:
Well, I'd say A would be from the origin to A. I have no idea what B would be as there's only two lines, one point, and no other coordinates besides for the beam.

It looks like A is the point at the end of the hardware. But you are given a force vector ##\vec F##. That would be your A. And it asks for the projection along the ##u## axis. Isn't that a hint for B? And you are going to need the formula for the magnitude of the projection of one vector on another.
 
  • #6
Well there's no coordinates anywhere along the u axis so I don't know how to find the vector for it . . . And are you talking about the formula F[itex]_{}parallel[/itex] = Fcos[itex]\theta[/itex]? How would I use that in this problem since it doesn't give the required answer . . .
 
  • #7
Bluestribute said:
Well there's no coordinates anywhere along the u axis so I don't know how to find the vector for it . . .
There's an angle. That's all you need.
 
  • #8
You're going to have to explain how I use it in the problem . . .

Do I use Fcosθ to find the magnitude of the B vector? If I'm using the equation:

F[itex]^{}p[/itex] = (A • B)/(A*B) (vectors on top, magnitudes on bottom)

How does the Fcosθ equation help at all? It's not the answer they're looking for, I know that much . . .
 
  • #9
My problem is, how the hell do I use a dot product with only one vector known? And what do I do with Fcos(theta)?
 
  • #10
Your vector u is in the xy plane. You have an angle given. Can you figure out the components of a unit vector in the direction of u?
 
  • #11
Alright, so my unit vector is <(1/2),(rt(3)/2,0>? My A vector is <-2,4,4>? Where do I use the 700N? Is it really:

<(1/2), (rt(3)/2), 0> • <-2, 4, 4> = 700cos(30)B?
 
  • #12
Ok, you now have a unit vector in the direction of u. As I told you before, A is not the vector you want for the force. You are given ##\vec F## which is in the same direction as A but it isn't A because ##\vec F## is 700 units long. You need to to two things:

1. Figure out the vector ##\vec F## (its components).
2. Find the formula in your text that tells how to find the component of one vector on another.
 
  • #13
You're assuming I have resources . . . which I don't except for this forum since Google returns nothing.

U = < 1/2, [itex]\sqrt{}3[/itex]/2, 0 > (unit vector on the "u" line)
A = < 233.33, 466.67, 466.67 > (unit vector of the force multiplied by 700)

U • A = ||A||*||B||*cosθ, where ||A|| = 700 and θ = 30°

Is this right?
 
  • #14
Bluestribute said:
You're assuming I have resources . . . which I don't
OK, let's talk about projections in general then. You need to know how to find the projection of an arbitrary vector ##\vec x## onto a 1-dimensional subspace U. Let ##\vec y## and ##\vec z## be the unique vectors such that ##\vec y## is in U, ##\vec z## is orthogonal (perpendicular) to every vector in U, and ##\vec x=\vec y+\vec z##.

We're looking for a formula for ##\vec y##. If ##\vec u## is a unit vector in U, there's a unique real number r such that ##\vec y=r\vec u##. So we can write ##\vec x=r\vec u+\vec z##. Now what do you get if you use this formula to compute ##\vec u\cdot\vec x##? The result is simply r. (You should verify that). So we have ##\vec y=r\vec u=(\vec u\cdot\vec x)\vec u##.
 
  • #15
Ok, let me write out my interpretation and thinking:

[itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{z}[/itex] is essentially a normal vector but for a line. The addition, I'm assuming, is basic trig (it's 10:00 here and my work is away).

I don't understand why we're searching for [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{y}[/itex], unless it has to do with the specific problem here.

So the reason it equals simply r is because [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{y}[/itex] and [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{z}[/itex] are perpendicular? The ending is a bit fuzzy, but what I'm getting is that r = [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{u}[/itex] • [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{x}[/itex]

So if I was relating this to my problem, I would have to get the unit vector of u, which is simple enough because it's a 30-60-90 triangle, dot it with the unit(?) vector for the Force (aka point A), and multiply by the force? It's knowing when to use a unit vector and when to multiply by the force that I know for sure I'm struggling with.
 
  • #16
That's the idea, but it's a bit easier to calculate it this way. If ##\hat u## is a unit vector in the direction of ##\vec u## then the magnitude of the component of ##\vec F## along ##\vec u## is just ##|\vec F\cdot \hat u|##. Remember, this is the scalar magnitude of the vector projection, and that's what the problem asked for.
 
  • #17
Bluestribute said:
I don't understand why we're searching for [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{y}[/itex], unless it has to do with the specific problem here.
Because ##\vec y## is by definition the projection of ##\vec x## onto U.

Bluestribute said:
So the reason it equals simply r is because [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{y}[/itex] and [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{z}[/itex] are perpendicular? The ending is a bit fuzzy, but what I'm getting is that r = [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{u}[/itex] • [itex]\stackrel{\rightarrow}{x}[/itex]
Right, two vectors are perpendicular if and only if their dot product is zero. So we get
$$\vec u\cdot\vec x=\vec u\cdot (r\vec u+\vec z)=r(\vec u\cdot\vec u)+\vec u\cdot\vec z=r|\vec u|^2+0=r.$$ And since ##\vec y=r\vec u##, this means that ##\vec y=(\vec u\cdot\vec x)\vec u##.

Do you understand this so far? Do you see how to use this result to find ##|\vec y|##?

By the way, the only reason I'm using the ##\vec x## notation is that I found \vec easier to type than something that makes the text bold, like \mathbf. (Not sure what is the best way to write vectors in bold). I see (when I'm quoting you) that you use a more complicated way to create that arrow. You can just type \vec x, or if you prefer, \mathbf x to get ##\mathbf x##.

Bluestribute said:
So if I was relating this to my problem, I would have to get the unit vector of u, which is simple enough because it's a 30-60-90 triangle, dot it with the unit(?) vector for the Force (aka point A), and multiply by the force? It's knowing when to use a unit vector and when to multiply by the force that I know for sure I'm struggling with.
You have found ##\vec F##. You have found ##\vec u##. (I think. I didn't check those results). And now you know the formula for the projection of an arbitrary vector onto an arbitrary 1-dimensional subspace, such as the straight line marked u in the picture.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #18
Fredrik said:
Because ##\vec y## is by definition the projection of ##\vec x## onto U.


Right, two vectors are perpendicular if and only if their dot product is zero. So we get
$$\vec u\cdot\vec x=\vec u\cdot (r\vec u+\vec z)=r(\vec u\cdot\vec u)+\vec u\cdot\vec z=r|\vec u|^2+0=r.$$ And since ##\vec y=r\vec u##, this means that ##\vec y=(\vec u\cdot\vec x)\vec u##.

Do you understand this so far? Do you see how to use this result to find ##|\vec y|##?

By the way, the only reason I'm using the ##\vec x## notation is that I found \vec easier to type than something that makes the text bold, like \mathbf. (Not sure what is the best way to write vectors in bold). I see (when I'm quoting you) that you use a more complicated way to create that arrow. You can just type \vec x, or if you prefer, \mathbf x to get ##\mathbf x##.


You have found ##\vec F##. You have found ##\vec u##. (I think. I didn't check those results). And now you know the formula for the projection of an arbitrary vector onto an arbitrary 1-dimensional subspace, such as the straight line marked u in the picture.

Ok, so here's what I ended up doing.. I have two more problems for this section, but I want to know if I'm doing it right (so expect more topics . . . or hopefully not if I'm understanding).

I took ##\vec F## (the coordinates of point A multiplied by the magnitude of F) and dotted it with 30-60-90 unit triangle (which had no z components). Essentially ##\vec u## • ##\vec x##, though my x in this case was ##\vec F##. Then I multiplied by my unit vector and got 290, the answer.

And I'm going to start using that notation because I'm going to be here for a while. With all the money I get from my scholarship, I should be paying you guys. This forum saved all of us last year . . .
 
  • #19
Bluestribute said:
Ok, so here's what I ended up doing.. I have two more problems for this section, but I want to know if I'm doing it right (so expect more topics . . . or hopefully not if I'm understanding).

I took ##\vec F## (the coordinates of point A multiplied by the magnitude of F)

I hope that isn't what you mean. You have to multiply a unit vector in the direction of A by the magnitude of ##\vec F## to get ##\vec F##.
 
  • #20
Yes yes, I meant unit vector. I've just been writing it so much I started writing sloppy shortcuts but yes, unit vector A.
 
  • #21
The explanation of what you did got weird in the next paragraph too:

Bluestribute said:
I took ##\vec F## (the coordinates of point A multiplied by the magnitude of F) and dotted it with 30-60-90 unit triangle (which had no z components). Essentially ##\vec u## • ##\vec x##, though my x in this case was ##\vec F##. Then I multiplied by my unit vector and got 290, the answer.
It sounds like you took ##\vec u\cdot\vec F## (a number) and multiplied it by ##\vec u## (a vector), and got the final answer ##(\vec u\cdot\vec F)\vec u## (a vector), and then you said that this is equal to 290 (a number).

I still think you did the right thing, which is to calculate ##|\vec u\cdot\vec F|##. I got a result close to 290, but not quite that. It's of course possible that I've made a mistake, but I have to ask if you're rounding off to the nearest multiple of 10 or something like that.
 
  • #22
I most definitely rounded at the end (I got like 291.652319 . . . I don't know the decimal).

Actually, reading my work, I ended up finding the unit vector from the force. Then I multiplied the magnitude of the force through its unit vector. I took this new ##\vec F## and dotted it with the unit vector (along the path of projection).

That worked for the rest of the problems in the set too.
 
  • #23
Hm, rounded off to the nearest integer, I got 287. I guess you also rounded off intermediate results. If you're going to do that, you should include a few extra decimals in the intermediate results.
\begin{align}
&\vec F=\frac{700}{\sqrt{36}}(-2,4,4)\\
&\vec u=\bigg(\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sqrt 3}{2},0\bigg)\\
&\|\vec F\cdot\vec u\| =\frac{700}{\sqrt{36}}\big((-2)\frac{1}{2}+4\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}+4\times 0\big) =\frac{700}{\sqrt{36}}(-1+2\sqrt{3})\approx 287.
\end{align}
 

Related to Finding Projection of Force onto line

1. What is the concept of finding projection of force onto a line?

The concept of finding projection of force onto a line is a mathematical calculation used to determine the component of a force that acts in the direction of a given line. It is often used in physics and engineering problems to simplify complex forces into their individual components.

2. How is the projection of force onto a line calculated?

The projection of force onto a line can be calculated using the dot product, which is the product of the magnitude of the force and the cosine of the angle between the force vector and the line. The resulting value is the magnitude of the projected force.

3. What information is needed to find the projection of force onto a line?

To find the projection of force onto a line, you will need to know the magnitude of the force, the direction of the force (typically given in the form of a vector), and the direction of the line onto which the force is being projected.

4. Can the projection of force onto a line be negative?

Yes, the projection of force onto a line can be negative. This occurs when the angle between the force vector and the line is greater than 90 degrees, causing the cosine to be negative. A negative projection indicates that the force is acting in the opposite direction of the line.

5. What are some real-world applications of finding projection of force onto a line?

Finding projection of force onto a line has many applications in physics and engineering, such as analyzing the forces acting on a structure, calculating the work done by a force, and determining the optimal direction for a force to achieve a desired result. It is also useful in navigation and geospatial analysis, as well as in computer graphics and animation.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
30
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
470
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
398
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
817
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
244
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
397
Back
Top