Calculation of % component of resultant force

soundproof
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,
This appears to be a trivial question but I'm uncertain to the correct answer.

If I have forces of 3N, 4N and 5N in the x,y and z directions respectively. The resultant force will be the square root of these components squared ≈ 7N. If I want to describe any of the components as a % of the resultant force, how is this done?

I have seen in a journal paper that from my example the z-component of the force is calculated as 71.4% (5/7*100) of the resultant force, while the y-component was 57% of the resultant force. The addition of these percentages is greater than 100% so this cannot be true.

If I calculate the z-component as a % of the resultant force by dividing the squares of each number (5^2/7^2*100), then the addition of each % component sums up to be 100% (x - 18%, y - 32%,z - 51%). Is this method correct and if so can someone explain to me why it is necessary to square both vectors.

Thank you
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
welcome to pf!

hi soundproof! welcome to pf! :smile:
soundproof said:
If I want to describe any of the components as a % of the resultant force, how is this done?

this seems a pretty crazy idea to me

what would be the point? :confused:

anyway … you have |F| ~ 7, F.i = 3, F.j = 4, F.k = 5

32 + 42 + 52 ~ 72,

so of course (3/7)2 + (4/7)2 + (5/7)2 ~ 1 :wink:
 
soundproof said:
Hi everyone,
This appears to be a trivial question but I'm uncertain to the correct answer.

If I have forces of 3N, 4N and 5N in the x,y and z directions respectively. The resultant force will be the square root of
the sum of
these components squared ≈ 7N. If I want to describe any of the components as a % of the resultant force, how is this done?
The magnitude of the resultant force will be \sqrt{9+ 16+ 25}= \sqrt{50}= 5\sqrt{2} which is, yes, about 7.
So the x component is about 3/7= 0.429... or about 43% of the whole, the y component is about 4/7= 0.571... or about 57% of the whole, and the z component is about 5/7= 0.714 or about 71% of the whole.

I have seen in a journal paper that from my example the z-component of the force is calculated as 71.4% (5/7*100) of the resultant force, while the y-component was 57% of the resultant force. The addition of these percentages is greater than 100% so this cannot be true.
You are reading a journal paper and cannot do basic arithmetic?? Of course, the percentages do not add to 100%, they are not numbers, they are vector components:
\sqrt{(.42)^2+(.57)^2+(.71)^2}= 1 instead.

If I calculate the z-component as a % of the resultant force by dividing the squares of each number (5^2/7^2*100), then the addition of each % component sums up to be 100% (x - 18%, y - 32%,z - 51%). Is this method correct and if so can someone explain to me why it is necessary to square both vectors.

Thank you
You cannot find a "percentage" of a vector because a vector is not a number. What you are doing is finding percentages of lengths of vectors. And the length of a vector is, by definition, the square root of the squares of the components.
 
Thank you for your replies.

Just to clarify regarding this statement -
You cannot find a "percentage" of a vector because a vector is not a number.

So, it is not correct/possible to describe a vector in terms of % contributions of x, y and z components? And this is because I am trying to relate a length/scalar to a vector?
 
soundproof said:
So, it is not correct/possible to describe a vector in terms of % contributions of x, y and z components?

you can describe anything you like, but if you want the percentages to add to 100, it's difficult to see how it could be of any practical applicaton

(we can define the efficiency of a force …

if we want something to move horizontally, but we pull on it with a rope at an angle, then the efficiency would be the horizontal component divided by the whole force)​
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top