Simplify Equation for T Cosine and Delta X: Step by Step Guide

  • Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Simplify
In summary: I think you're mixing up the equations. The conversation is about finding the equation \frac { d (T cos\theta)}{dx} = 0, not about the equations you mentioned.
  • #1
Cyrus
3,238
17
I'm not getting this. Can someone show me how they got from this:

[tex] - T cos ( \theta ) + (T + \Delta T ) cos ( \theta + \Delta \theta ) =0 [/tex]

to below by dividing by [tex] \Delta x [/tex]

[tex] \frac { d (T cos\theta)}{dx} = 0 [/tex]

Im just not getting it for some reason... The first term would be Tcos(theta)/ dx, which should turn into 1/0, which blows up to infinity?

Thank you,

Cyrus
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Cyrus,

Clearly, you are treating [itex]\Delta T[/itex] and [itex]\Delta \theta[/itex] as "small" numbers. The lowest order term, [itex]T\cos \theta[/itex], cancels out. Just expand everything in terms of small quantities and your result will be evident.
 
  • #3
like this?


[tex] -Tcos(\theta) + Tcos(\theta + \Delta \theta ) + \Delta T cos (\theta + \Delta \theta) = 0 [/tex]

so I can neglect the delta theta, giving me:

[tex] -Tcos(\theta) + Tcos(\theta ) + \Delta T cos (\theta) =0 [/tex]

which cancels out those two terms, but then I am left with:

[tex] \Delta T cos (\theta) = 0 [/tex]

Now, I am not where I should be...oops?

I'm somehow supposed to get:

[tex] \Delta T cos (\theta) + T sin(\theta) \Delta \theta = 0 [/tex]
 
  • #4
Got it Tide! I'm sorry, but I disagree, or am not seeing, what you said, here's my approach:

[tex] -T cos (\theta) + (T + \Delta T)cos(\theta + \Delta \theta) = 0 [/tex]

which is equivalent to:

[tex] T cos( \theta + \Delta \theta) - T cos(\theta) + \Delta T cos (\theta + \Delta \theta) = 0 [/tex]

which is equivalent to:

[tex] \frac {[T cos( \theta + \Delta \theta) - T cos(\theta)]\Delta \theta}{\Delta \theta} + \Delta T cos (\theta + \Delta \theta) = 0 [/tex]

NOW divide by delta X:

[tex] \frac {[T cos( \theta + \Delta \theta) - T cos(\theta)]\Delta \theta}{\Delta \theta \Delta x} + \frac {\Delta T cos (\theta + \Delta \theta)}{\Delta x} = 0 [/tex]



and take the limit as: [tex] \Delta x \rightarrow 0; \Delta \theta \rightarrow 0;\Delta T \rightarrow 0 [/tex]

So, the [tex] \frac {cos(\theta + \Delta \theta)-cos(\theta)}{\Delta \theta} [/tex] term goes to [tex] sin(\theta) [/tex], and [tex] \frac {\Delta \theta}{\Delta x} [/tex] goes to [tex] \frac{d \theta } {dx} [/tex] and [tex] \frac {\Delta T}{\Delta x} [/tex] goes to [tex] \frac {dT}{dx} [/tex] and [tex] cos(\theta + \Delta \theta )[/tex] goes to just good ole, [tex] cos (\theta) [/tex]

and your left with,

[tex] T sin(\theta) \frac{ d \theta}{ dx} + \frac {dT}{dx} cos (\theta)} [/tex]

which clearly equals:

[tex] \frac {d (Tcos\theta)}{dx} [/tex]

Good god, its 4:00 am. I am glad I got this done or I wouldent have fallen asleep. Goodnight.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
You can use the fact that [itex]cos(\theta+\Delta\theta)= cos(\theta)cos(\Delta\theta)- sin(\theta)sin(\Delta\theta)[/itex].

Multiply the whole thing out then use the fact that [itex]cos(\Delta\theta)[/itex] goest to 1 and [itex]sin(\Delta\theta)[/itex] goes to 0 as [itex]\Delta\theta[/itex] goes to 0.
 
  • #6
Is it so complicated?
I just think:
[tex]\theta[/tex] and [tex]T[/tex] are functions of [tex]x[/tex] (it means they are not independent to each other. otherwise [tex]x[/tex] wouldn't appear here in this context), so let [tex]S(x)=T\cos(\theta)[/tex], then the first equation can read [tex]- S(x) + S(x + \Delta x) = 0[/tex]. Then divide this equation by [tex]\Delta x[/tex] and you'll have [tex]\frac{\Delta S}{\Delta x} = \frac{dS}{dx} = 0[/tex].
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Hmm,YES, these all seem to be valid methods. Thats very cool. Does my approach seem wrong?
 
  • #8
Your argument #4 looks fine to me. But I just thought it's a bit complicated and not generic. What you wrote in #4 is [tex]\Delta S = ( \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} \frac{\partial T}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial S}{\partial \theta} \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x} ) \Delta x [/tex]
It holds even if it isn't [tex]\cos{\theta}[/tex], and now that intermediate variables [tex]\theta[/tex] and [tex]T[/tex] are affected by [tex]x[/tex], so we can simply put [tex]\frac{dS}{dx} = \frac{\partial S}{\partial T} \frac{\partial T}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial S}{\partial \theta} \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x}[/tex]

and you can ignore these intermediate variables. If you see [tex]S[/tex] simply as a function of x, this can be explained without partial differential as in #6.

hope this helps.. and Merry Christmas! (here in Japan it's 2:30am)
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Are you working the (one dimensional) wave equation for a vibrating string by chance (where T is tension)? As I recall seeing something similar during that proof.
 
  • #10
Its not a wave equation for a string, but close. Its a derviation to find the equation of a string/rope/wire/whatever under a distributed load in the x direction, OR if you replace delta x by delta s, it is the weight distribution of a catenary wire. No vibration, sorry.
 
  • #11
cyrusabdollahi said:
I'm not getting this. Can someone show me how they got from this:
[tex] - T cos ( \theta ) + (T + \Delta T ) cos ( \theta + \Delta \theta ) =0 [/tex]
to below by dividing by [tex] \Delta x [/tex]
[tex] \frac { d (T cos\theta)}{dx} = 0 [/tex]
Im just not getting it for some reason... The first term would be Tcos(theta)/ dx, which should turn into 1/0, which blows up to infinity?
Thank you,
Cyrus

If ( T+ delT)cos(@+ del@) =o, then Tcos@=0.

The change of Tcos@ is d (Tcos@).

The change of 0 is 0.

divdie d( Tcos@) =0 by delX, and allow delX = dx.
 
  • #12
cyrusabdollahi said:
Its not a wave equation for a string, but close. Its a derviation to find the equation of a string/rope/wire/whatever under a distributed load in the x direction, OR if you replace delta x by delta s, it is the weight distribution of a catenary wire. No vibration, sorry.

Then there should be other equations like

[tex](T + \Delta T) \sin(\theta + \Delta \theta) = T \sin(\theta) + \varrho \frac {\Delta x} { \cos(\theta) } g[/tex]

and

[tex]\Delta y = \Delta x \tan(\theta)[/tex]

along Y axis where [tex]\varrho[/tex] is the mass density of the rope.
and

[tex]\frac {d(T \sin(\theta))} {dx} = \frac {\varrho g} {\cos(\theta)}[/tex] or just [tex]\varrho g[/tex]

[tex]\frac {dy}{dx} = \tan(\theta)[/tex] or just [tex]sin(\theta)[/tex]

or something...
 
Last edited:
  • #13
If ( T+ delT)cos(@+ del@) =o, then Tcos@=0.

The change of Tcos@ is d (Tcos@).

The change of 0 is 0.

divdie d( Tcos@) =0 by delX, and allow delX = dx.

...what?
 
  • #14
maverick6664 said:
Then there should be other equations like

[tex](T + \Delta T) \sin(\theta + \Delta \theta) = T \sin(\theta) + \varrho \frac {\Delta x} { \cos(\theta) } g[/tex]

and

[tex]\Delta y = \Delta x \tan(\theta)[/tex]

along Y axis where [tex]\varrho[/tex] is the mass density of the rope.
and

[tex]\frac {d(T \sin(\theta))} {dx} = \frac {\varrho g} {\cos(\theta)}[/tex] or just [tex]\varrho g[/tex]

[tex]\frac {dy}{dx} = \tan(\theta)[/tex] or just [tex]sin(\theta)[/tex]

or something...


You're close. No cos in the denominator. Its just the denisty, times gravity, time delta x. Actually its really, w(x)deltaX. w(x) is the more general weight distribution. Your right about the tangent, no sin there.
 
  • #15
cyrusabdollahi said:
You're close. No cos in the denominator. Its just the denisty, times gravity, time delta x. Actually its really, w(x)deltaX. w(x) is the more general weight distribution. Your right about the tangent, no sin there.

oops. you are right..cosine shouldn't be in the denominator :frown:
 
  • #16
It seems to me that this is obvious.
T is possibly dependent on [tex]\theta[/tex] and therefore:

[tex] \Delta (T cos(\theta)) = T(\theta + \Delta \theta) * cos(\theta + \Delta \theta) - T(\theta) * cos(\theta) [/tex]

and of course the definition

[tex] T(\theta + \Delta \theta) = T(\theta) + \Delta T [/tex]

leads to the result
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Simplify Equation for T Cosine and Delta X: Step by Step Guide

What does it mean to simplify an equation?

Simplifying an equation means to manipulate it in a way that it becomes easier to solve or understand. This can involve combining like terms, factoring, or using other mathematical techniques.

How do I know when an equation is simplified?

An equation is considered simplified when it cannot be simplified any further using basic algebraic techniques. This means there are no more like terms that can be combined, no more parentheses to distribute, and no more fractions to simplify.

Can I simplify equations in different ways?

Yes, there are often multiple ways to simplify an equation. The key is to use techniques that make the equation easier to work with or understand. It is also important to follow the rules of algebra and maintain equality throughout the simplification process.

Is there a specific order to simplify an equation?

Yes, there is an order of operations that should be followed when simplifying an equation. This includes simplifying within parentheses first, then working with exponents, followed by multiplication and division from left to right, and finally addition and subtraction from left to right.

Can I use a calculator to simplify equations?

Yes, calculators can be helpful in simplifying equations, especially when dealing with complex expressions. However, it is important to understand the steps involved in simplifying an equation by hand in order to verify the accuracy of the calculator's result.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top