How Is Tension Calculated Using Vector Mathematics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ParoXsitiC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tension Vector
Click For Summary
Tension in strings can be calculated using vector mathematics by summing forces in both the x and y directions. The concept of normalizing vectors is crucial, as a vector must have a magnitude of one to be considered a unit vector. Each rope has both a length vector and a tension vector, which share the same direction, allowing simplification in calculations. The tension's magnitude can be derived from the relationship between these vectors without needing to distribute magnitudes into the vectors. Understanding these principles clarifies the calculation of tension in physics problems involving vectors.
ParoXsitiC
Messages
58
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find the tension on the strings using vectors.

3708386105.png


This is such an easy problem for me when I was in my physics class, we just summed up the forces in the x-direction set it to the force of the weight in the x, and did the same for y.

When introduced into vectors in calc 3 I realized hey it's basically the same thing. However the notion of a normalize vector really threw me off. Apparently a vector isn't correct if its magnitude isn't 1, if that's the case you have to divide it by it's magnitude

Homework Equations



160cba30d26b18903acfd568fe2a89e9.png


-R = T1 + T2



The Attempt at a Solution



I found the x components of the triangles using the pythagorean theorem.

√x2+(3/4)2 = 2
x = ± 1/4 √55

√x2+(3/4)2 = 1
x = ± 1/4 √7

I took the negative answer of 1/4 √7, because I am assuming that right is positive so the x-component is left, thus negative.

-200<0,-1> = T1 * 2<1/4√55, 3/4> + T2 * 1<-1/4√7, 3/4>

At this point I am not sure, it's my understanding from physics that you don't distribute the magnitudes into the vectors, only if they are in terms of cosine and sin. So I decided that magnitude of 2 was somehow already incorporated into 1/4√55.

<0,200> = T1 <1/4√55, 3/4> + T2 <-1/4√7, 3/4>

0 = T1 * 1/4√55 - T2 * 1/4√7
200 = T1 * 3/4 + T2 * 3/4

Solving system of equations:

T1 = 70.11898262
T2 = 196.5476841

It seems right, and this is how I would done it in physics but the notion of "magnitude" rather it applies to the tension or the length of the string in this case is really throwing me off, and if I have to normalize the vector by dividing it by it's magnitude, and which magnitude? tension or length? I believe learning vectors in physics first messes up my calculus understanding, or my teacher confused me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ParoXsitiC said:

Homework Statement



Find the tension on the strings using vectors.

3708386105.png


This is such an easy problem for me when I was in my physics class, we just summed up the forces in the x-direction set it to the force of the weight in the x, and did the same for y.

When introduced into vectors in calc 3 I realized hey it's basically the same thing. However the notion of a normalize vector really threw me off. Apparently a vector isn't correct if its magnitude isn't 1, if that's the case you have to divide it by it's magnitude

There is no such notion of a "correct" vector. What's going on is that you know the tension must act in the same direction as the length of the ropes, but you don't know how much tension there is.

Each rope has a length \ell (a vector). Each rope has a tension T also a vector, but since the tension must be in the same direction as the length, then you know that the tension is T = |T| \ell/|\ell| = |T| \hat \ell. That's all we're doing. The unit vector \hat \ell is the same as we'd get if we used sines and cosines directly.

So, for each rope, there are two vectors--a length vector and a tension vector. They both have the same direction, and you're using this information to simplify the problem down from solving for both components of tension to just the tension's magnitude.
 
Doing it the cosine and sin way (on maple)

http://i.minus.com/iJrTwOn9Y5eqt.png

As you can see; if I was to normalize the vector , the magnitudes (lengths of rope) would be divided I would have got the same answer when I divided 2 into both 1/4 sqrt(55) and 3/4.

I am guessing? that you should normalize the vector
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Muphrid said:
There is no such notion of a "correct" vector. What's going on is that you know the tension must act in the same direction as the length of the ropes, but you don't know how much tension there is.

Each rope has a length \ell (a vector). Each rope has a tension T also a vector, but since the tension must be in the same direction as the length, then you know that the tension is T = |T| \ell/|\ell| = |T| \hat \ell. That's all we're doing. The unit vector \hat \ell is the same as we'd get if we used sines and cosines directly.

So, for each rope, there are two vectors--a length vector and a tension vector. They both have the same direction, and you're using this information to simplify the problem down from solving for both components of tension to just the tension's magnitude.

OK I understand, we are really finding the tension vector but it's in the same direction as the ropes vector so we can just use the ropes vector. However since their is no "correct" way to have a vector, which one of these is right:

Distributing the magnitude:
2<1/4 sqrt(55), 3/4> = <1/2 sqrt(55), 3/2>

Normalizing:

1/2<1/4 sqrt(55), 3/4> = <1/8 sqrt(55), 3/8>

Ignoring the magnitude:

<1/4 sqrt(55), 3/4>
 
Last edited:
Yes, when I say "direction," I mean a unit (normalized) vector which could be expressed totally in terms of sines and cosines. The tension and the length have the same direction--the same unit vector--but different magnitudes.

Question: why did you do sine of inverse sine?
 
Muphrid said:
Yes, when I say "direction," I mean a unit (normalized) vector which could be expressed totally in terms of sines and cosines. The tension and the length have the same direction--the same unit vector--but different magnitudes.

Question: why did you do sine of inverse sine?

Ok thanks, just to show my work that the inverse sin was used in both spots.
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
879
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K