Parabola problem - some data given.

  • Thread starter Thread starter yoghu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Data Parabola
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining a parabolic equation for a power line strung between two mountains, with specific height and sag requirements. The mountains are 1669.602m apart, with a height difference of 5m, and the sag is calculated to be 23m based on the given tension specifications. Participants express confusion over the requirement to model a parabolic arc when the actual shape would be a catenary. Despite this, it is noted that the problem can still be approached by fitting a parabola through three defined points. The conversation highlights the mathematical exercise of curve fitting, emphasizing the need to simplify the approach to find the correct parabolic equation.
yoghu
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Essentially there is a power line which must be strung between posts on two mountains which are 1669.602m apart.

The first mountain is 5m higher than the second.

To overcome tension the wire is strung with a sag, 1m of sag for every 75m, or part thereof. This sag is relative to the lower pylon.

Determine an equation for the profile of the wire between the two mountains, if the arc is to be in a PARABOLIC shape.

Homework Equations



I've worked out that 1669.602/75 = (22. something) which means there must be 23m of sag, as it states part thereof. Relative to the lower pylon, I understand this to mean the turning point will be 23m below the smaller mountain.

Due to the difference in heights, this is obviously not a symmetrical parabola.

The Attempt at a Solution


I've tried letting the turning point be the origin, and having 3 points
(X2 - 1669.602 , 28)
(1669.602-X1, 23)
(0,0)
where x2 is the distance from the turning point to the second mountain, and X1 is the distance between the first mountain to the turning point.

I've also tried letting the first mountain be the origin, with 3 points
(0,0)
(?,-28) - minimum point
(1669.602,-5)

But I'm very stuck on what to do with these possible points. Please help.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
but the arc will NOT be a parabola ! It will be a catenary.
 
phinds said:
but the arc will NOT be a parabola ! It will be a catenary.

I know, but the question specifically asks for a parabolic equation.

It also asks to discuss limitations of this shape, so that's where I'd bring in your point.
 
yoghu said:
I know, but the question specifically asks for a parabolic equation.

It also asks to discuss limitations of this shape, so that's where I'd bring in your point.

But how can you produce an equation for a parabola to describe a curve that isn't a parabola? What would be the POINT of such an exercise?
 
phinds said:
But how can you produce an equation for a parabola to describe a curve that isn't a parabola? What would be the POINT of such an exercise?


I have no idea, and I don't know why.

Do you have any idea on how to do it??
 
phinds said:
But how can you produce an equation for a parabola to describe a curve that isn't a parabola? What would be the POINT of such an exercise?

It's a mathematical exercise in curve fitting. The mountain/powerline theme is just window dressing that provides a minds-eye picture of the setup.
 
gneill said:
It's a mathematical exercise in curve fitting. The mountain/powerline theme is just window dressing that provides a minds-eye picture of the setup.

So is one then supposed to first find the correct curve (the catenary) and then use that do find the closest possible parabola curve? Seems like an amazing waste of time. What am I missing?
 
phinds said:
So is one then supposed to first find the correct curve (the catenary) and then use that do find the closest possible parabola curve? Seems like an amazing waste of time. What am I missing?

There is enough information to fit a parabola; consider that you effectively have three given points through which the curve passes.
 
gneill said:
There is enough information to fit a parabola; consider that you effectively have three given points through which the curve passes.

DOH ! NOW I see what you meant in post #6. I'm just overcomplicating things. Thanks for the clarification.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
16K
Replies
57
Views
11K
Back
Top