Cross product and dot product of forces expressed as complex numbers

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of complex numbers to analyze forces acting on a rod that can rotate around a point. Participants are exploring the relationships between the cross product and dot product of forces expressed as complex numbers, particularly focusing on components of forces that are orthogonal and parallel to the rod.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to compute the orthogonal and parallel components of a force using complex number representations. They question the validity of their equations for moments and force components. Other participants raise concerns about the definitions and calculations related to the complex dot product and suggest checking the results by summing forces in the tangential direction.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning assumptions about the definitions of vector operations in the context of complex numbers. Some have provided alternative calculations and interpretations, indicating a productive exploration of the topic without reaching a consensus on the correct approach.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the definitions of the complex dot product and the implications of using magnitudes versus components in calculations. Participants are also considering the implications of their assumptions on the results obtained.

magwas
Messages
124
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have came up with an example to illustrate my question.

There is a rod, which can turn around p1.

attachment.php?attachmentid=23657&stc=1&d=1265886809.png


p1p2 = (-1+j) m
p1p3 = (-3 + 3j) m
p1p4 = (1 - j ) m
F1 = (1+3j) N
F3 = (-1 - 2j ) N
F4 = unknown, orthogonal to the rod

compute F2_n, orthogonal component of F2 to the rod
compute F2_t, parallel component of F2 to the rod

Homework Equations



The question is actually here:
The sum of moments is
[tex]\sum{\vec{F} \times \vec{l}} =0[/tex]
Where
[tex]a \times b = \Re{a} \Im{b} - \Im{a} \Re{b}[/tex]
Is that true?
Likewise, the force components parallel to the rod is:
[tex]\sum{\vec{F} \cdot \hat{\vec{l}}} = 0[/tex]
where
[tex]a \cdot b = a \overline{b} + b \overline{a} = 2 \Im{a} \Im{b} + 2 \Re{a} \Re{b}[/tex]
Is it correct?

The Attempt at a Solution



I write the moments around p3. I sum here because:
  • all forces are on the same side of the turning point
  • all arms are measured towards the turning point (this is why p1p3 - p1p4)
  • the direction of forces are encoded in their vectors
The unit vector normal to the rod is come by dividing a vector along the rod by its length, and multiplying it with j: [tex]\frac{\mathbf{\imath} p1p3}{\lvert{p1p3}\rvert}[/tex]
so the equation for moments:
[tex]F_{1} \times \left(p1p3 - p1p4\right) + F_{3} \times \left(p1p3 - p1p2\right) + p1p3 \times \left \frac{\mathbf{\imath} p1p3}{\lvert{p1p3}\rvert} \lvert F_{2_{n}}\rvert} = $\\<br /> $<br /> \Im{p1p3} \Im\left(\frac{\lvert F_{2_{n}}\rvert p1p3}{\lvert{p1p3}\rvert}\right) + \Im\left(p1p3 - p1p2\right)<br /> \Re{F_{3}} + \Im\left(p1p3 - p1p4\right) \Re{F_{1}} + \Re{p1p3} \Re<br /> \left(\frac{\lvert F_{2_{n}}\rvert p1p3}{\lvert{p1p3}\rvert}\right) - \Im{F_{1}} \Re\left(p1p3 - p1p4\right) - <br /> \Im{F_{3}} \Re\left(p1p3 - p1p2\right) = $\\<br /> $<br /> 10.0 + 4.24264068711929 \lvert F_{2_{n}} \rvert = 0[/tex]
so
[tex]\lvert F_{2_{n}}\rvert =-2.3570226039551[/tex] which gives
[tex]F_{2_{n}} = \lvert F_{2_{n}}\rvert \frac{\mathbf{\imath} p1p3}{\lvert{p1p3}\rvert} = 1.66666666666667 + 1.66666666666667 \mathbf{\imath}[/tex]

Now the forces parallel to the rod:

We use our unit vector [tex]\hat{l} = \frac{p1p3}{\lvert{p1p3}\rvert}[/tex]
, and forget F4 as it is orthogonal to the rod, so the sum:
[tex]F_{3} \cdot \hat{l} + \lvert F_{2_{t}}\rvert \cdot \hat{l} + F_{1} \cdot \hat{l} = $\\<br /> 2 \lvert F_{2_{t}}\rvert \Re{\hat{l}} + 2 \Im{F_{1}} \Im{\hat{l}} + 2 \Im{F_{3}} \Im{\hat{l}} +<br /> 2 \Re{F_{1}} \Re{\hat{l}} + 2 \Re{F_{3}} \Re{\hat{l}} = $\\<br /> 1.4142135623731 - 1.4142135623731 \lvert F_{2_{t}}\rvert = 0[/tex]
so
[tex]\lvert F_{2_{t}}\rvert = 1[/tex]
which gives
[tex]F_{2_{t}} = -0.707106781186548 + 0.707106781186548 \mathbf{\imath}[/tex]
and
[tex]F_{2} = F_{2_{n}} + F{2_{t}} = 0.959559885480119 + 2.37377344785321 \mathbf{\imath}[/tex]
 

Attachments

  • example.png
    example.png
    2.2 KB · Views: 670
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, maybe I should have used [tex]magnitude_{F_{2_{n}}}[/tex] instead of [tex]\lvert F_{2_{n}}\rvert[/tex]...
 
magwas: I got F2n = 2.3570 N, but I got F2t = 0.707 107 N, not 1. You can check your answer by summing forces in the rod tangential direction, to see if the summation equals zero.
 
I see, [tex]\lvert F_{2_{t}}\rvert \cdot \hat{l}[/tex] was a mistake.
the equation correctly is [tex]F2t + \left ( F_{1} \cdot l \right) + \left ( F_{3} \cdot l \right) = 0[/tex]
but it comes down to
[tex]F2t + 2 \Im{F_{1}} \Im{l} + 2 \Im{F_{3}} \Im{l} + 2 \Re{F_{1}} \Re{l} + 2 \Re{F_{3}} \Re{l} = 0[/tex]
which leads to [tex]1.4142135623731 + F2t = 0[/tex],
so F2t = -1.4142135623731
Do I have a problem with the definition of complex dot product?

Thank you again.
 
I have looked up the definition of vector dot product. Wikipedia tells me that it is
[tex]\sum a_{i} b_{i}[/tex] for vectors a=(a1,...,an) and b=(b1,...bn).

So a . b must be re(a)re(b)+im(a)im(b), not twice that.
In this way I get the same result as you, I believe.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K