Difference between Force components using triangle rule and dotproduct

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differences between resolving force components using the triangle rule and the dot product, particularly in the context of non-perpendicular axes. Participants explore the geometric and algebraic methods for determining force components along arbitrary axes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the distinction between the component of a force along an axis using the parallelogram rule versus the dot product definition, noting that some texts suggest these magnitudes differ.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of using unit vectors along non-perpendicular axes and attempts to relate the force components through dot products, suggesting a method to derive these components.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding the notation and statements made about force components and unit vectors, seeking clarification on the mathematical relationships presented.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the definitions of force components in terms of angles and unit vectors, with references to traditional coordinate systems.
  • A later post presents equations for calculating force components in a non-perpendicular system, asserting that these results align with those obtained through the parallelogram method.
  • Another participant proposes a proof involving the law of sines to demonstrate consistency with the results derived from the parallelogram rule.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing levels of understanding regarding the mathematical relationships and methods discussed. While some agree on the validity of the equations presented, others remain confused about the terminology and concepts, indicating that the discussion is not fully resolved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of force components and the implications of using non-perpendicular axes. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with vector mathematics among participants.

ehabmozart
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,
I have here one important abstract question which makes up some perplexity to my understanding. Attached to this post is one pic of F and two new introduced axes ( u and v ) . Let us for instance not consider them as perpendicular to each other. Now, if I am asked to resolve these forces along u and v USING geometry, I will use the parallelogram rule which will outcome results rather than F cos theta as for the u axis for example. Now, if we want to compute the scalar projection of F along u, we simply can say it is F. unit vector f u which will be F cos theta. However, written in some books, this magnitude is NOT the same as the component of F along u. Why?? To sum up my question, what is the difference between the component of F along any axis using the parallelogram rule and the dot product definition. Sorry for elongating and Thanks to whoever gives me a kind hand.
 

Attachments

  • 005-components-in-inclined-axes.jpg
    005-components-in-inclined-axes.jpg
    7.1 KB · Views: 535
Physics news on Phys.org
hello ehabmozart! :smile:

for the usual coordinates i and j,

F = Fxi + Fyj

where
Fx = F·i

Fy = F·j

as you've noticed, that doesn't translate into the case of non-perpendicular axes

so instead of "dotting" with the same coordinate, let's "cross" with the other coordinate …
Fxixj = Fxj

Fyjxi = Fxi

(these are the same as saying that F - Fxi is parallel to j, and F - Fyj is parallel to i, which is what we want)

if you use a general u and v instead of i and j, the formulas now work :wink:
 
[QUOTE
so instead of "dotting" with the same coordinate, let's "cross" with the other coordinate …
Fxixj = Fxj

Fyjxi = Fxi

(these are the same as saying that F - Fxi is parallel to j, and F - Fyj is parallel to i, which is what we want)

if you use a general u and v instead of i and j, the formulas now work :wink:[/QUOTE]

I am sorry my man, but I honestly understood nothing from these statements. What do you mean for instance by Fyjxi = Fxi[/INDENT] ... Thanks for your time and effort, after all :)
 
ehabmozart said:
What do you mean for instance by Fyjxi = Fxi[/INDENT] ... Thanks for your time and effort, after all :)

i and j are the usual symbols for the unit vectors in the x and y directions

so Fx and Fy are Fcosθ and Fsinθ

and Fxi will be the vector with magnitude Fsinθ
 
Let's suppose that u and v are not perpendicular, and [itex]\vec{i}_u[/itex] and [itex]\vec{i}_v[/itex] are the unit vectors along the u and v axes respectively. Then the force [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] can be represented by:
[tex]\vec{F}=F_u\vec{i}_u+F_v\vec{i}_v[/tex]
If we take the dot product of [itex]\vec{F}[/itex] with respect to [itex]\vec{i}_u[/itex] and [itex]\vec{i}_v[/itex]
we get
[tex]\vec{F}\centerdot \vec{i}_u =F_u+F_v(\vec{i}_v\centerdot \vec{i}_u)[/tex]
[tex]\vec{F}\centerdot \vec{i}_v =F_u(\vec{i}_v\centerdot \vec{i}_u)+F_v[/tex]

If you solve for the components of F in the u-v system, you get:
[tex]F_u=\frac{(\vec{F}\centerdot \vec{i}_u)-(\vec{F}\centerdot \vec{i}_v)(\vec{i}_v\centerdot \vec{i}_u)}{1-(\vec{i}_v\centerdot \vec{i}_u)^2}[/tex]
[tex]F_v=\frac{(\vec{F}\centerdot \vec{i}_v)-(\vec{F}\centerdot \vec{i}_u)(\vec{i}_v\centerdot \vec{i}_u)}{1-(\vec{i}_v\centerdot \vec{i}_u)^2}[/tex]

This is the same result you would get using the parallelogram method.

Chet
 
Last edited:
This is a continuation of my previous post. Let α be the angle between the force and the u axis, and let β be the angle between the force and the v axis. Prove that the results I presented are consistent with the law of sines for the components of the force in the triangle formed by Fu, Fv, and the force (in the parallelogram rule setup).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
897