Projection of a distance in rectangular coordinates

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the rectangular coordinates of a vector BC in relation to point B, involving projections and angles in a geometric context. The problem appears to involve trigonometric relationships and vector components in a Cartesian coordinate system.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different methods for projecting vector BC onto line AB and subsequently onto the X and Y axes. There are attempts to clarify the definitions of angles and the relationships between the components of the vectors involved. Questions arise about the correctness of the projections and the interpretation of signs in the components.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with each other's reasoning, questioning assumptions about angles and projections. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of unit vectors and the need to consider the direction of projections, but no consensus has been reached on the correct approach.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the definitions of coordinate directions and the implications of negative components in the context of the problem. Participants are also navigating the constraints of the problem setup and the geometric interpretations of their projections.

ShizukaSm
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
robotarm.jpg


My problem is that I believe I have a wrong concept somewhere, and I can't find what I'm doing wrong exactly. For this problem let's suppose what I want to do is find the rectangular coordinates of BC.

I had two "possible solutions" I tried to achieve this, . First the correct one:
(I apologize by drawing quality)
Drawing.JPG


By determining angles I can find that the angle between the vertical axis and BC is, therefore:
(300\sin(50),300\cos(50))

Now the wrong one:

By looking at the original figure alone, first I project BC into AB, then project BC into either X axis or Y axis.
Procedure:
  1. Projecting BC into AB -> (300\sin(20),300\sin(20))
  2. Projecting my new AB' into X and Y axis -> ((300\sin(20))\sin(60),(300\sin(20))\cos(60))

So, why is my second procedure wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ShizukaSm said:
what I want to do is find the rectangular coordinates of BC.
You mean, C in relation to B, yes?
[*]Projecting BC into AB -> (300\sin(20),300\sin(20))
I'm not at all sure what you mean by that. Is that supposed to be the coordinates, relative to B, of the projection of C onto the line AB (extrapolated)? If so, it's wrong.
 
ShizukaSm said:
By determining angles I can find that the angle between the vertical axis and BC is, therefore:
(300\sin(50),300\cos(50))
Just checking:
You mean to find the vector from B to C in cartesian coords oriented to the ground/vertical?
i.e. so the +j direction is OA?

##\vec{v}=\overrightarrow{BC} \\ \Rightarrow [\vec{v}]_{OA}= v_x\hat{\imath}+v_y\hat{\jmath} = (v_x,v_y)^t = 300(\sin 50, \cos 50)^t##

(here I'm using ##[\cdots ]_{proj}## to label the projection)

Now the wrong one:

By looking at the original figure alone, first I project BC into AB, then project BC into either X axis or Y axis.
Procedure:
  1. Projecting BC into AB -> (300\sin(20),300\sin(20))
  2. Projecting my new AB' into X and Y axis -> ((300\sin(20))\sin(60),(300\sin(20))\cos(60))

So, why is my second procedure wrong?
step 1: the angle is wrong.
step 2: each projection of BC to AB needs to be projected onto i/j - so there should be a sum in there.
Redo using unit vector notation and it should be clear.

i.e.
if ##\vec{u}=\overrightarrow{AB}## then the angle between ##\vec{v}## and ##\vec{u}## is 50+60=110deg.
define ##\hat{\jmath}_u = \vec{u}/u## - i.e. it's a unit vector pointing in the same direction as ##\vec{u}##, and let ##\hat{i}_u## to be perpendicular to the right, to make cartesian coords aligned with the y-axis along ##\vec{u}##

then .the projection onto AB goes:.. ##[\vec{v}]_{AB} = \hat{\imath}_u\sin 70 + \hat{\jmath}_u \cos 70##

for step 2, you need to express ##\hat{\imath}_u## and ##\hat{\jmath}_u## in terms of ##\hat{\imath}## and ##\hat{\jmath}##
so that ## [\vec{v}]_{OA} = [\hat{\imath}_u]_{OA}\sin 70 + [\hat{\jmath}_u]_{OA} \cos 70##i.e. ##[\hat{\jmath}_u]_{OA} = \hat{\imath}\sin 60 -\hat{\jmath}\cos 60##

... see what I mean? Each component of the projection onto AB gets another two components.
(caveat: I'm doing this from mobile so I probably made a dumb mistake - the approach should be fine.)
 
Simon Bridge said:
Just checking:
You mean to find the vector from B to C in cartesian coords oriented to the ground/vertical?
i.e. so the +j direction is OA?
Yes, exactly. the +j direction would be OA and +i the , to the right.

Simon Bridge said:
step 1: the angle is wrong.
step 2: each projection of BC to AB needs to be projected onto i/j - so there should be a sum in there.
Redo using unit vector notation and it should be clear.

Ok so, I think I understood what you meant. Basically I was ignoring the j coordinate in my original idea. I didn't quite understood everything just yet, though. Please take a look in what I did in order for me to explain better what I can't quite understand:
Solution.JPG

Just explaining the picture, I made two drawings to ensure I understood the situation (Initially I was ignoring ##BC_j##) and not "polute" the first.

My doubt is, I don't understand why ##BC_y = -(BC_i\cos(60)) + BC_j\cos(30)##, for instance. I discovered the "minus" because of empirical evidence (i.e. making sure it equals the answer I know is correct) and because of your tip. But... since it's a distance, shouldn't both of them be "positive"?

I also don't understand ##BC_x##. In my second draw, for instance, wouldn't I be add the "same" part twice?

Thanks in advance!
 
You made the AC direction the +x direction in the BC coordinates where I made it the +y direction. No matter - you can make any definition you like as long as you are clear about it.

Note: The projection of ##\vec{u}## in the direction of ##\vec{v}## is $$\frac{\vec{u}\cdot\vec{v}}{|\vec{v}|}=|\vec{u}|\cos\theta$$ ... which is not what you wrote.

But, despite all the confusion over dot products, you got the correct relation by exploiting the geometry rather than using general formulas.

In the next step you appear to have noticed that each AB-frame component resolves into two OA-frame components.

That minus sign you got comes right off the graph - it is due to the direction of the projection.
Without the minus sign, the resulting vector points the wrong way.

In general:

If ##\vec{v}=v_x \hat{\imath}##, ##v_x## is the amount of ##\vec{v}## in the direction of ##\hat{\imath}## ... if ##\vec{v}## points in the opposite direction to ##\hat{\imath}## then ##v_x## must be negative.

Hope that helps :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K