B Multiple Rotating Signs on a Fence Gate -- Overlap Question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the design of a fence gate with multiple rotating signs and the concern about potential overlap when the gate is rotated to a specified angle. The user seeks clarity on whether the spacing between the signs remains sufficient at a 42.5-degree rotation, noting that the visual gap appears to shrink significantly. Participants highlight inconsistencies in measurements and suggest using CAD software for precision. Calculations indicate that at 42.5 degrees, the gap between signs is approximately 1.9 inches, raising concerns about visibility and overlap. The user also poses several questions regarding the design stages and measurement units for construction.
scatterbrainz
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Math - Trig or Physics - Vectors
Hey Everyone,

This is a little project of mine. I'm including a daigram of it - top view -> down. This is part of a larger system.

Consider a fence gate made of poles. In my diagram Point "A" in blue is a non-moving vertical pole. Point "B" red is a pivot point for an arm containing all the points of "C" - purple. Each brown block represents a wood sign that is 5.5 inches wide. Sign "A" rotates around axis "A", signs "B", "C", "D", rotates around their respective axis "C".

The question is, when the arm rotates on axis "B", to a 42.5 deg (+/- 2.5 deg)angle, is the spacing sufficient so that the signs do not overlap each other?

For consideration: when the arm is along the x-plane - the spacing between signs is roughly 5.5 inches, however, it appears to be only 1.5 inches when it is rotated out to 42.5 deg (+/- 2.5 deg). If I remember back to my physic days this screams displacement, but its not just about where the point is when it rotates, its visual space between signs also. Ideas? thoughts ?
Sign-Angles.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
scatterbrainz said:
thoughts ?
Your measurements for the sign on the fixed post and the pivot are inconsistent - if the distance to the pivot is 13.5" the first sign will be further than 5.5" from the next when the pole is "horizontal" as in your drawing. Also this arrangement will not lead to a consistent spacing between all signs as the gate is rotated due to the offset between A and B.

Also 5.5" is more than 127 mm so I am going to ignore the metric measurements.

The diagram is well drawn and must have taken some time: it is important to take as much time and care with accuracy of measurements. Perhaps you could use CAD software - there are free tools available.

Anyway, assuming the signs are actually 5.5" wide and are at centres 11" apart:
  • From the diagram you should be able to see that the limiting case is formed by a right angled triangle with hypotenuse 11" (the distance between the centre of the signs) and shorter side 5.5" (the width of the signs).
  • The limiting angle is therefore ## \sin^{-1} \frac {5.5}{11} = 30° ##.
  • At 42.5° the distance between centres is ## 11" \sin 42.5° \approx 7.43" ## which gives a gap between the signs of about 1.9".
 
pbuk said:
Your measurements for the sign on the fixed post and the pivot are inconsistent - if the distance to the pivot is 13.5" the first sign will be further than 5.5" from the next when the pole is "horizontal" as in your drawing. Also this arrangement will not lead to a consistent spacing between all signs as the gate is rotated due to the offset between A and B.

Also 5.5" is more than 127 mm so I am going to ignore the metric measurements.
you are correct - when I converted via google - I probably forgot to hit enter - as 5.5 = 139.7mm 5.0 = 127 mm. Thank you for catching that
pbuk said:
The diagram is well drawn and must have taken some time: it is important to take as much time and care with accuracy of measurements. Perhaps you could use CAD software - there are free tools available.

Anyway, assuming the signs are actually 5.5" wide and are at centres 11" apart:
  • From the diagram you should be able to see that the limiting case is formed by a right angled triangle with hypotenuse 11" (the distance between the centre of the signs) and shorter side 5.5" (the width of the signs).
  • The limiting angle is therefore ## \sin^{-1} \frac {5.5}{11} = 30° ##.
  • At 42.5° the distance between centres is ## 11" \sin 42.5° \approx 7.43" ## which gives a gap between the signs of about 1.9".
 
Thanks for the answer. I just need to make sure the signs are visible on an angle. I've updated the drawing to show 3 stages, and adjusted what I think to be the measurements. Hopefully I haven't made any careless conversion mistakes. Let me know your thoughts ?
Angle-questionRev2-1.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
scatterbrainz said:
Thanks for the answer. I just need to make sure the signs are visible on an angle. I've updated the drawing to show 3 stages, and adjusted what I think to be the measurements. Hopefully I haven't made any careless conversion mistakes. Let me know your thoughts ?
Sorry, this last posted drawing shows up too blurry to see any fonts.

If you don't mind, I have a few questions:
1) What is the meaning of that Base unit?

2) Which stage is full opened and full closed?

3) What is the direction of the line of sight for which to avoid overlapping (I assume some gap is acceptable)?

4) What makes each sign suddenly rotate 90° between stages 1 and 2?

5) Why is a new stage 3 shown in the second diagram if you have initially specified the gate to open (or close) to a precise 42.5°+/- 2.5° angle?

6) What measurement units are you going to be working with during construction?
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
8K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Back
Top