Light between 2 towers reflecting off a lake

  • Thread starter Thread starter ArmChairPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lake Light
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a calculus problem involving two towers of different heights and a beam of light reflecting off a lake. The original poster is trying to determine the distance from the base of the left tower to the point where the light beam strikes the lake, given the heights of the towers and the distance between them.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to express the light path as a function of distance from the left tower and consider using trigonometric relationships to derive the necessary equations. There are questions about the laws of reflection and how they relate to the calculus approach required by the problem.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively working through the problem, with some providing hints and suggestions for sketching the scenario and deriving expressions for the lengths of the light path segments. There is a focus on using calculus to minimize the total distance traveled by the light, and various interpretations of the problem setup are being explored.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on using calculus rather than physics principles, which has led to some uncertainty about how to incorporate the laws of reflection into the calculus framework. The original poster has indicated a known answer but is seeking to understand the process of arriving at that answer through calculus.

ArmChairPhysicist
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
HW Template missing as it was moved from another forum
Please forgive me if I'm in breach of some etiquette with asking for help here, but calculus isn't my strongest subject, and I learn best by example.

I am currently studying in the Life Of Fred Calculus book (do I need to state copyright or something?). I am attempting to work a problem that reads as such:

"Two towers are 120 feet apart. The one on the left is 7 feet tall and the one on the right is 21 feet tall. A beam of light from the top of the left tower bounces off of a lake (note: I assume the lake spans the distance between the two towers, perfectly in line with them and not off somewhere else.) and hits the top of the other tower. Assuming the light takes the shortest path, how far from the base of the left tower will the beam strike the lake?" Authors note: "The algebra- not the calculus- is tough. After you have taken the derivative and set it equal to zero, try x= 10, 20, 30... and one of those will work."
Things I know need to be done.
As the problem states, I'm looking for the length base of a triangle that has 7 feet (the tower) as its height and the beam of light as the hypotenuse. I know I'm going to need the almighty derivative of an equation relating to the triangle, but I'm not sure how to get that equation.
Is there anyone that has experience with this book, or calculus in general, that could help me?
Many thanks in advance for your time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Forgot one thing, I know the answer, the distance from the base is fifty feet. But I'm stuck on figuring out how to solve this problem to get that answer in the first place.
 
Can you make a sketch of the situation? From this you should be able to write an expression for the length of the light path.
 
I can. Give me a minute to photograph it.
 
Hint: Assume the light reflects off of the lake at a distance X from the base of the left tower. Think of the distance traveled by the light as having two parts: Top of left tower to lake (point X) and lake to top of right tower. Each part is the hypotenuse of a triangle: use a bit of trig to express the total distance traveled as a function of X.
 
image.jpg
If I am understanding the problem, I need to find the equation of line BF, take the equation's derivative (praise the almighty derivative), set the derivative equal to zero, and then solve by algebra. Where I've gotten stuck is finding out how to get the equation of BF so that AF and DF connect to the two towers as described in the problem. I'm sure that I've forgotten something extremely simple, but I'm not seeing where to go from here.
 
Ah there it is, trig. I'll try this
 
If it's a reflection, doesn't that constrain the angles of incidence and reflection...?
 
I thought about the laws of reflection, but given the confines of the book (calculus and not physics) I doubted the author would assume the reader would know or remember those rules, considering they aren't mentioned
 
  • #10
berkeman said:
If it's a reflection, doesn't that constrain the angles of incidence and reflection...?
You're not supposed to use that fact. But that will be the answer.
 
  • #11
ArmChairPhysicist said:
I thought about the laws of reflection, but given the confines of the book (calculus and not physics) I doubted the author would assume the reader would know or remember those rules, considering they aren't mentioned
Right. You are actually using Fermat's principle of least time, which can be used to derive the law of reflection. For this exercise they want you to use calculus.
 
  • #12
Doc Al said:
You're not supposed to use that fact
Oopsies! (Kobayashi-Maru...)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Doc Al
  • #13
Your diagram is incomplete. Draw the point F on the surface of the lake (just guess where it is), then draw the lines BF and DF. You should then be able to write expressions for the length of the line BF in terms of x and the length of the line DF in terms of x.
 
  • #14
ArmChairPhysicist said:
If I am understanding the problem, I need to find the equation of line BF, take the equation's derivative (praise the almighty derivative), set the derivative equal to zero, and then solve by algebra. Where I've gotten stuck is finding out how to get the equation of BF so that AF and DF connect to the two towers as described in the problem. I'm sure that I've forgotten something extremely simple, but I'm not seeing where to go from here.
Draw the point F on your diagram. (The distance BF is what I called "X".) Then draw lines AF and DF; those are the two parts of the light's path that I referred to.

Use trig to find expressions for lengths AF and DF.
 
  • #15
I've done that, working on the trig now.
 
  • #16
In triangle abf , the only known values are angle abf = 90' and side AB = 7 feet. I don't know the hypotenuse, because to find that I need side BF, which is the whole reading I'm working this, to find BF. And I must be overlooking a trig function, because to use any of the six, I need at least another angle or side.
 
  • #17
And technically I already know BF= 50, but working the problem backwards isn't going to teach me much.
 
  • #18
You 'know' the side BF, it's distance is x. So write the hypotenuse AF in terms of AB (7 feet) and x.
 
  • #19
But can I even solve that with two out of three variables being unknown?
 
  • #20
7^2 + X^2 = C^2. C=AF
 
  • #21
ArmChairPhysicist said:
But can I even solve that with two out of three variables being unknown?
Just do as phyzguy says: Express the hypotenuse in terms of X. You're not solving for anything yet.
 
  • #22
ArmChairPhysicist said:
7^2 + X^2 = C^2. C=AF
Good. Express C in terms of X.

Now do the same for the other piece of the path, DF.
 
  • #23
If BF = X, what must CF equal?
 
  • #24
So we have
AF = sqrt(7^2 + X^2)
DF = sqrt(21^2 + (120-X)^2)
 
  • #25
CF is equal to 120-X
 
  • #26
ArmChairPhysicist said:
But can I even solve that with two out of three variables being unknown?

There is only one unknown, the distance BF, which I suggested you call X. Given that, the distance AF is given, as you said by AF^2 = 7^2 + X^2, or AF = √(7^2 + X^2).
 
  • #27
I have a feeling the chain rule will be needed soon.
 
  • #28
I'll try applying that and see if that gets me somewhere, unless there is another step that I should do first.
 
  • #29
ArmChairPhysicist said:
So we have
AF = sqrt(7^2 + X^2)
DF = sqrt(21^2 + (120-X)^2)
Perfect. Now you must minimize AF + DF.
 
  • #30
ArmChairPhysicist said:
I have a feeling the chain rule will be needed soon.
Oh yes.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K