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

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?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
8K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Back
Top