Calculate the 2d height of the rectangle

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the 2D height of a rectangle rotated in 3D about both the x-axis and y-axis, start with the initial point at (x, y, 0). After rotating around the x-axis by angle t, the new coordinates become (x, ycos(t), ysin(t)). When rotating around the y-axis by angle r, the coordinates transform to (xcos(r) - ysin(t)cos(r), ycos(t), ysin(t)sin(r) + xsin(r)). The total height is determined by projecting these points back onto the x-y plane, focusing on the vertical extent from the bottom left to the top right corner. This approach simplifies the calculation due to the perpendicular nature of the rotation axes.
primalvisions
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a rectangle i am rotating in 3d on multiple axis. i am trying to calculate the 2d height of the rectangle and I am quite lost.

For example, if i rotate the rectangle on the x-axis so the top of the rectangle comes forward and the bottom moves back. i can calculate the height of this fine.

But then i rotate it on the y-axis so the left of the rect moves to the right and the right hand side moves left.

Whats the total height from the bottom left corner to the top right corner extent when rotated on 2 axis?

Its for an orthographic view of the object where you show the front, top and side views of the 3d object.

Any clue how i can calculate this?

Cheers =)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Can you give it a better description as to where the rectangle is (centered on the x-y plane is what it sounds like)? And what is your definition of height here? You mean the distance when you project the rotated rectangle back onto x-y plane? Or the distance when projected onto the z-axis?
 
yes it is centered on the x-y plane and yes the height when projected back onto the x-y plane.

the total distance from the bottom to the top in a 2d view when rotated in 3d about the x-axis then the y-axis.

=)
 
Fortunately the axes of rotation are perpendicular, so you have an easy time doing this.

If you start off with a point at (x,y,0) and you rotate about the x-axis by an angle t, the new point you get is

(x,ycos(t),ysin(t)).

Since you know the x coordinate of the point is unchanged, you can see this by just considering the rotation of the point (y,0) in the y-z plane around the origin by an angle of t)

Now for a caveat. When I decided I was going around by an angle t, that's the angle you see when you look at the y-z plane such that y is horizontal, and z is the vertical axis (which is how you defined it).

Next we look at the x-z axis. The point (x,ysin(t)) is rotated by an angle of r - we omit the y coordinate since it's fixed when rotating about the y axis. Now we hit a problem here, since the left of the rectangle moves to the right regardless of which direction you rotate it in. I'll assume the left of the rectangle is being rotated upwards, if it's moving down just use -r here. Then the new point is
(xcos(r)-ysin(t)cos(r),ysin(t)sin(r) + xsin(r)). so going back into three dimensions we get

(xcos(r)-ysin(t)cos(r),ycos(t),ysin(t)sin(r)+xsin(r))
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top