Optimization Challenge - Poles and Wires

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an optimization problem involving two poles of different heights and the placement of wires between them to maximize the angle subtended by the wires. The problem includes mathematical reasoning and geometric considerations, with participants exploring various methods to derive the solution.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the problem of maximizing the angle subtended by two wires attached to the tops of two poles of heights $h_1$ and $h_2$, separated by distance $w$.
  • Another participant suggests using a computational tool (Wolfram|Alpha) to solve the equation derived from the problem but is challenged to show work instead.
  • There is a correction regarding the use of the arctangent function instead of arcsine in the mathematical formulation.
  • A geometric approach is proposed, involving a circle that touches the ground and passes through the tops of the poles, leading to a derived formula for the distance from the first pole to the attachment point of the wires.
  • One participant expresses appreciation for the geometric method presented by another, indicating a positive reception of the approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best method to solve the problem, with differing opinions on the use of calculus versus geometric reasoning. There are corrections and clarifications made, but no final agreement on a single approach is established.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the definitions of variables and the geometric configuration may not be fully clarified, leading to potential ambiguities in the proposed solutions.

MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Suppose you have two poles separated by the distance $w$, the first of height $h_1$ and the second of $h_2$, where $0<h_1<h_2$. You wish to attach two wires to the ground in between the poles, one to the top of each pole, such that the angle subtended by the two wires is a maximum. What portion of the distance between the two poles, as measured from the first pole, must you take as the staking point for the two wires? Please refer to the following diagram:

View attachment 1101
 

Attachments

  • polewire.jpg
    polewire.jpg
    4.1 KB · Views: 108
Physics news on Phys.org
M R said:
solve (asin(x/a)+asin((1-x)/b))'=0 - Wolfram|Alpha

:p

and I should show that it's a maximum.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

Also, I would prefer that work be shown, rather than simply relying on a CAS. The result should then be given in terms of $h_1,\,h_2,\,w$. (Sun)
 
MarkFL said:
Sorry, but that is incorrect.

Also, I would prefer that work be shown, rather than simply relying on a CAS. The result should then be given in terms of $h_1,\,h_2,\,w$. (Sun)

Whoops. Sorry. It should have been atan of course.

I do do the maths on paper first by the way (usually). It's just easier to post a link to WA than it is to post a proper answer.
 
M R said:
Whoops. Sorry. It should have been atan of course...

That was only one error...

edit: Perhaps not though...it depends on how you have defined $a$ and $b$.
 
Here is an approach avoiding calculus.

If you draw a circle touching the ground and passing through the tops of the poles (at the points $P$ and $Q$) then it should be obvious geometrically that the wires should be attached at the point where the circle touches the ground.

Unfortunately, using this approach there does not seem to be an easy way to find the distance $x$ from the left pole to the point of attachment. The centre $C$ of the circle must lie on the perpendicular bisector of $PQ$, and the distance $CP$ must be equal to the height of $C$ above the ground. Using those facts, I found by some laborious calculations that $$x = \frac{\sqrt{h_1h_2\bigl(w^2 + (h_2-h_1)^2\bigr)} - h_1w}{h_2-h_1}.$$​
 

Attachments

  • poles.png
    poles.png
    5.9 KB · Views: 105
Very nice geometric method, Opalg! (Clapping)

My solution:

Please refer to the diagram:

View attachment 1104
We may state:

$$\alpha+\theta+\beta=\pi$$

$$\theta=\pi-(\alpha+\beta)$$

Now, we see that:

$$\tan(\alpha)=\frac{h_1}{x}$$

$$\tan(\beta)=\frac{h_2}{w-x}$$

Hence:

$$\theta=\pi-\left(\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{h_1}{x} \right)+\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{h_2}{w-x} \right) \right)$$

Differentiating with respect to $x$, we obtain:

$$\frac{d\theta}{dx}=-\frac{1}{1+\left(\frac{h_1}{x} \right)^2}\left(-\frac{h_1}{x^2} \right)-\frac{1}{1+\left(\frac{h_2}{w-x} \right)^2}\left(\frac{h_2}{(w-x)^2} \right)=$$

$$\frac{h_1}{x^2+h_1^2}-\frac{h_2}{(w-x)^2+h_2^2}=\frac{h_1\left((w-x)^2+h_2^2 \right)-h_2\left(x_2+h_1^2 \right)}{\left(x^2+h_1^2 \right)\left((w-x)^2+h_2^2 \right)}$$

Equating this to zero implies:

$$h_1\left((w-x)^2+h_2^2 \right)=h_2\left(x^2+h_1^2 \right)$$

Now, expanding and arranging in standard quadratic form, we obtain:

$$\left(h_2-h_1 \right)x^2+\left(2h_1w \right)x+h_1\left(h_1h_2-h_2^2-w^2 \right)=0$$

We find that the discriminant $\Delta$ is:

$$\Delta=\left(2h_1w \right)^2-4\left(h_2-h_1 \right)\left(h_1\left(h_1h_2-h_2^2-w^2 \right) \right)$$

After simplification we find:

$$\Delta=4h_1h_2\left(\left(h_2-h_1 \right)^2+w^2 \right)$$

and so, application of the quadratic formula on the quadratic in $x$, and discarding the negative root, there results:

$$x=\frac{-h_1w+\sqrt{h_1h_2\left(\left(h_2-h_1 \right)^2+w^2 \right)}}{h_2-h_1}$$

To find what portion of the distance between the two poles, as measured from the first pole, we must take as the staking point for the two wires, we may use:

$$\frac{x}{w}=\frac{-h_1w+\sqrt{h_1h_2\left(\left(h_2-h_1 \right)^2+w^2 \right)}}{w\left(h_2-h_1 \right)}$$
 

Attachments

  • polewire2.jpg
    polewire2.jpg
    4.8 KB · Views: 108

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 142 ·
5
Replies
142
Views
136K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
8K