Calculating the dimensions of an arc

  • Thread starter Thread starter kennethgilpin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arc Dimensions
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the width of an arc bounded by a rectangle, given the arc length and the rectangle's height. Participants suggest using calculus to derive the equation of the circle that defines the arc, but they encounter challenges due to the complexity of the resulting equations. It is noted that the equations for arc length and width cannot be solved algebraically, leading to the conclusion that numerical approximation or iterative methods may be necessary. Kenneth expresses intent to solve the problem iteratively for use in a model. The conversation highlights the mathematical intricacies involved in this geometric problem.
kennethgilpin
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Dear all,

I feel this should be a simple problem but I can't solve it. Could you give me a hand?

Imagine if an arc is bounded by a rectangle of dimensions width and height. The arc starts in the bottom left corner of the rectangle, and ends in the bottom right corner. The apex of the arc is the center of the top side of the rectangle. A picture of this is shown half way down this page:
http://www.mathopenref.com/chordsintersecting.html"

Assuming that the arc is less than a semi circle, if I know the length of the arc and the height of the rectangle, how can I calculate it's width?

Any help gratefully received,

kenneth
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi kennethgilpin! :smile:

So you know some calculus? In my opinion that's the easiest way to solve this.

First we will have to find the equation of the circle given the coordinates of the rectangle.
Say that the vertices of the rectangle have coordinates (0,L),(0,-L),(H,L),(H,-L).

The general equation of a circle is

(x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2=R^2

with (x0,y0) the center of the circle and R the radius. We see easily that the center of the circle must lie on the y-axis, and thus x0=0.

Now, what you have to do is to find y0 and R such that (0,L) and (H,0) lie on the circle

x^2+(y-y_0)^2=R^2
 
@MM: I'm afraid this won't work.
It's the arc length that is given, and the width that is asked.

I believe that the resulting equations can not be solved algebraically.
Of course it can be approximated numerically.
 
I like Serena said:
@MM: I'm afraid this won't work.
It's the arc length that is given, and the width that is asked.

Yes, I know. What I was attempting is to find an equation which calculated the arc length if you have the length and width given. Then I would use this equation to find an equation calculating the width... I think this ought to work, given that the equations are not too difficult...
 
I created the set of equations:

<br /> \begin{eqnarray}<br /> S &amp;=&amp; 2 R \alpha \\<br /> W &amp;=&amp; 2 R \sin \alpha \\<br /> R &amp;=&amp; H + R \cos \alpha<br /> \end{eqnarray}<br />

where S is the arc length, and \alpha is half of the angle of the arc.

If you try to solve it for W, with given S and H, you'll quickly see that you're left with an equation that is afaik not solvable algebraically.
 
thank you for your replies. @likeSerena - i got similar equations to you which I could not solve.

This is for use within an iterative model so I will try to solve it iteratively.

kenneth
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top