MHB Rearranging Formulas: Finding W in Terms of M and L

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samwise-zambeezi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around rearranging the formula M = (((W x L / 2) x (L / 2)) - ((W x L / 2) x (L / 4))) to solve for W. Participants suggest multiplying the entire equation by 4 to simplify it, leading to the expression Mx4 = ((WLx2) x (Lx2)) - ((WLx2) x L). After factoring out W and simplifying the fractions, the final rearranged formula is W = 8M / L^2. The conversation highlights common confusions in algebraic manipulation and the importance of clear notation. The problem is resolved with a correct formula for W.
Samwise-zambeezi
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have a formula which I need to rearrange but it's been a while since I covered this at school, I've tried to read up and re-study but I keep getting confused about what I can/can't do to the various brackets.

The formula is:

M = (((W x L / 2) x (L / 2)) - ((W x L / 2) x (L / 4)))

I'm trying to rearrange in terms of W, so W = ...

Any help or advance anyone could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi! Can you start by multiplying each term in this by 4? What do you get if you do that?

Is this the starting formula by the way?

$$M = \left( \frac{W \times L}{2} \times \frac{L}{2} \right) - \left( \frac{W \times L}{2} \times \frac{L}{4} \right)$$
 
Hi Jameson, Happy New Year and thanks very much for getting back to me!

So, the equation definitely looks better in that format (i was using microsoft excel before). I'll try to mutiply both terms by 4 below (Sorry, I'm not used to using proper math input formatting)...

\[ M=(\frac{W x L}{2}) x (\frac{L}{2}) - (\frac{W x L}{2}) x (\frac{L}{4}) \]

\[ Mx4=(\frac{W x L}{2}) x (\frac{L}{2}) x 4 - (\frac{W x L}{2}) x (\frac{L}{4})x 4 \]

\[ Mx4=(({W x Lx2}) x (Lx2)) - ({W x Lx2}) x L \]

Then, if that's right?... could i divide everything by 'L'?

\[ (\frac{Mx4}{L})=(({W x Lx2}) x L) - ({W x Lx2}) \]

I'm not really sure about that, or if it's right, where to go from here. Think I'm getting confused about which parts of the term i should apply the 'action' to (ie. both sides of the '-', or both sides of the 'x' on both sides of the '-')

Sorry, hard to explain in writing but really appreciate your help
 
Samwise-zambeezi said:
Hi Jameson, Happy New Year and thanks very much for getting back to me!

So, the equation definitely looks better in that format (i was using microsoft excel before). I'll try to mutiply both terms by 4 below (Sorry, I'm not used to using proper math input formatting)...

\[ M=(\frac{W x L}{2}) x (\frac{L}{2}) - (\frac{W x L}{2}) x (\frac{L}{4}) \]

\[ Mx4=(\frac{W x L}{2}) x (\frac{L}{2}) x 4 - (\frac{W x L}{2}) x (\frac{L}{4})x 4 \]

\[ Mx4=(({W x Lx2}) x (Lx2)) - ({W x Lx2}) x L \]

Then, if that's right?... could i divide everything by 'L'?

\[ (\frac{Mx4}{L})=(({W x Lx2}) x L) - ({W x Lx2}) \]

I'm not really sure about that, or if it's right, where to go from here. Think I'm getting confused about which parts of the term i should apply the 'action' to (ie. both sides of the '-', or both sides of the 'x' on both sides of the '-')

Sorry, hard to explain in writing but really appreciate your help
Please don't use "x" for times. It can get very confusing. Either just write WL or W*L or [math]W ]cdot L[/math].

[math]M = \left ( \dfrac{WL}{2} ~ \dfrac{L}{2} \right ) - \left ( \dfrac{WL}{2} ~ \dfrac{L}{4} \right )[/math]

[math]M = \dfrac{WL^2}{4} - \dfrac{WL^2}{8}[/math]

Factor the common W:
[math]M = W \left ( \dfrac{L^2}{4} - \dfrac{L^2}{8} \right )[/math]

Can you subtract the fractions?

-Dan
 
Aaah, think I've got it!

So:

\[ M = W (\frac{L^2}{4}−\frac{L^2}{8}) \]

\[ M = W (\frac{L^2}{8}) \]

\[ M / (\frac{L^2}{8}) = W \]Is that right? Looks right, thanks so much guys!
 
Otherwise known as [math]W = \dfrac{8M}{L^2}[/math].

Good job!

-Dan
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top