How do you find the normal unit vector to a parametric curve?

Click For Summary
To find the normal unit vector for the parametric curve r(t)=<2sint,5t,cost>, the derivative of the tangent vector must be taken and then normalized. The tangent vector is calculated as r1(t)=<2cost,5,-sint>, and to convert it into a unit vector, it is divided by its magnitude. The process of deriving the unit normal vector can be complex, but it is essential to derive from the unit tangent vector rather than the tangent vector itself. Additionally, when calculating curvature, using the second formula k=|v x a|/|v|^3 may simplify the process for complicated examples. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately determining the tangent and normal vectors as well as curvature.
member 508213

Homework Statement


I am supposed to find the tangent and normal unit vector to r(t)=<2sint,5t,cost>.

Homework Equations


.

The Attempt at a Solution


r1(t)=<2cost,5,-sint> which is a tangent vector to the curve, and then to make it a unit vector I would multiply by 1/(sqrt(4cos^2t+25+sin^2t).

Finding the normal unit vector is a little bit more confusing for me. I understand that it is supposed to be the derivative of the tangent vector divided by the magnitude (to make it length 1) but I am surprised because taking the derivatives of <2cost/sqrt(4cos^2t+25+sin^2t), 5/sqrt(4cos^2t+25+sin^2t),-sint/sqrt(4cos^2t+25+sin^2t)> and then turning that into a unit vector is extremely messy. Would it be possible to instead simply take the derivative of the tangent vector (not the unit tangent vector) r1(t)=<2cost,5,-sint> and get r2(t)=<-2sint,0,-cost> and then make that into a unit vector by dividing by sqrt(4sin^2t+cos^2t) or would this be incorrect.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Austin said:

Homework Statement


I am supposed to find the tangent and normal unit vector to r(t)=<2sint,5t,cost>.

Homework Equations


.

The Attempt at a Solution


r1(t)=<2cost,5,-sint> which is a tangent vector to the curve, and then to make it a unit vector I would multiply by 1/(sqrt(4cos^2t+25+sin^2t).

Finding the normal unit vector is a little bit more confusing for me. I understand that it is supposed to be the derivative of the tangent vector divided by the magnitude (to make it length 1) but I am surprised because taking the derivatives of <2cost/sqrt(4cos^2t+25+sin^2t), 5/sqrt(4cos^2t+25+sin^2t),-sint/sqrt(4cos^2t+25+sin^2t)> and then turning that into a unit vector is extremely messy. Would it be possible to instead simply take the derivative of the tangent vector (not the unit tangent vector) r1(t)=<2cost,5,-sint> and get r2(t)=<-2sint,0,-cost> and then make that into a unit vector by dividing by sqrt(4sin^2t+cos^2t) or would this be incorrect.

Thanks
No, the unit normal vector is defined as the derivative of the unit tangent vector, which derivative is then divided again by its magnitude:

http://mathwiki.ucdavis.edu/Calculu.../The_Unit_Tangent_and_the_Unit_Normal_Vectors

You are correct in the fact that taking the derivative of the unit tangent vector can get pretty messy, as the link above acknowledges.
 
SteamKing said:
No, the unit normal vector is defined as the derivative of the unit tangent vector, which derivative is then divided again by its magnitude:

http://mathwiki.ucdavis.edu/Calculu.../The_Unit_Tangent_and_the_Unit_Normal_Vectors

You are correct in the fact that taking the derivative of the unit tangent vector can get pretty messy, as the link above acknowledges.
Thank you very much, I have an additional question as well. I am supposed to find the curvature of these curves as well and there are 2 formulas I know of:
k=lTprimel/lvl and k=lvxal/lvl^3 for messy examples such as this one am I correct in assuming that using the second formula would make finding the curvature much easier?
 
It helps a little bit to observe that 4 cos^2(t)+ 25+ sin^2(t)= 3cos^2(t)+ 25+ cos^2(t)+ sin^2(t)= 3 cos^2(t)+ 26
 
Austin said:
Thank you very much, I have an additional question as well. I am supposed to find the curvature of these curves as well and there are 2 formulas I know of:
k=lTprimel/lvl and k=lvxal/lvl^3 for messy examples such as this one am I correct in assuming that using the second formula would make finding the curvature much easier?
This article gives several different formulas for the curvature:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Curvature.html

There are formulas derived especially for curves which are defined using parametric equations.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K