What's new
What's new

OT- Calculate the Hypotenuse of a Triangle Wrapped into a Partial Circle

David_M

Hot Rolled
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Location
Midway, GA, USA
I know there are some good mathematicians on here. What is the length of the hypotenuse of the curved triangle (marked "x")? I can get it by letting the drawing program tell me or by treating it as a partial ellipse, other ways?

edit: It is hard to read the dimensions, they are: Side Adjacent: 7.854 ; Side Opposite: 4.899 ; Hypotenuse of the normal Triangle is: 9.2566 ; The Radius of the curved Triangle is: 5.000 ; and they are Right Triangles.

Math.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/165865059/original
 
Last edited:
is it projected onto a cylinder?

If so you can just use the a^2+b^2=C^2

a=1/4*(2*pi*r)
b= height

This is because you can just treat the lower curved side of the triangle as a 1/4 of the perimeter. it is still a triangle just a curved one.
 
Your drawing is a little ambiguous, but if we assume that you have a helix, then imagine that you took a drawing of your planar right angles triangle and then wrapped it around the circumference of a cylinder of the required radius. Since you haven't stretched anything, the length of the hypotenuse remains the same and you can use plain old Pythagoras as alextnnr suggests.

If you have something more elaborate in mind then we will need to have a bit better definition of your shape.
 
Yes, your drawing is ambiguous. If the triangle is wrapped (not projected) on a cylinder then use Mr Pythagoras. If you're really asking about the planar triangle (the one with curves) in your drawing then you don't have a right triangle any more. You can make the "long side" (not a hypotenuse any more) what you want and follow any curve you want. I suspect you're wrapped. Yes?

Cheers,
Rich
 
Last edited:
"Yes, your drawing is ambiguous."

To me too.:eek:

This shows it better. It is a right triangle drawn on a cylinder with the hypotenuse formed by removing a planer surface that is angled. I have it tilted forward in this view:
http://www.pbase.com/image/165867863

Showing it with an ellipse formed if the hypotenuse is closed.
http://www.pbase.com/image/165867866

Calculated using 7" x 5" in the sigma summation. the 5" was given and the 7" came from the square root(5"^2 + 4.899"^2). I think the length is 9.4903422325 (a quad of the ellipse).
http://www.pbase.com/image/165867865
 
This is exactly like a right triangle. I confirmed that the base is 1/4 of the circumference of a circle of radius 5. Using a^2 + b^2 = c^2, I get 9.2566.
..
 
Yes, the drawing has insufficient information. Is it on a cylinder? Or on a sphere?

If it is on a cylinder, it can be un-wound (mentally) and treated like a triangle in a plane.

If it is on a sphere, then it gets a lot more complicated. For one thing, we would need the radius (or diameter) of that sphere.

No sense in knocking ourselves out until the problem is properly stated.
 
I misstated in the title how it is constructed. It is a 10" dia. cylinder (not sphere) with parts trimmed away (using planer surfaces) to leave a triangle.

This may show it best: http://www.pbase.com/image/165869509/large

I unrolled the triangle to show its shape in 2d (the blue outline; red shows an imaginary straight line hypotenuse). You can see that the real hypotenuse is a curved line with a constantly varying radius.

Does this make sense?
 
I think your latest drawing represents a conic section, specifically an ellipse. It would be useful to see a couple of orthogonal views to confirm this. Certainly the shapes produced by a slicing plane through a cylinder or more generally a cone are conic sections, i.e. parabolas, ellipses, hyperbolas.
 
If it's wrapped on a cylinder (no conic section involved) then it's straight right angle triangle math (Mr P again ). If you have a curved long side ( not a hypotenuse ) to start with in the planar world that is wrapped on a cylinder that's an entirely different problem in which you have to define the length ahead of time. Then when you wrap it on the cylinder that length remains the same.

I misstated in the title how it is constructed. It is a 10" dia. cylinder (not sphere) with parts trimmed away (using planer surfaces) to leave a triangle.

This may show it best: http://www.pbase.com/image/165869509/large

I unrolled the triangle to show its shape in 2d (the blue outline; red shows an imaginary straight line hypotenuse). You can see that the real hypotenuse is a curved line with a constantly varying radius.

Does this make sense?
 
If its a right triangle wrapped onto a cylinder, with the base perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder, I think your answer is 9.2566, and the angle is 31 degrees, 57 minutes, and 15 seconds.
 
If, as you seem to be stating, it is a right triangle that is just wrapped around the surface of a cylinder, then yes: a^2 + b^2 = c^2

Totally straight forward. And it does not matter what angle it is oriented as you wrap it on that cylinder, it remains the same right triangle that you started with. Try it with a paper triangle and a pipe or some other cylinder.
 
This shows the steps involved in making the triangle: http://www.pbase.com/image/165872286/large

It ends up being made from one quarter of the circumference of the starting 10" diameter cylinder.


This is the information that you should have provided in the original post.

The right triangle is a red herring. It's only significance is that it shares two sides (so, three vertices) with the form that you care about.

The length of "X" is the circumference of the ellipse/4. "X" is not a straight line.

If you don't know how to calculate the circumference of an ellipse, Google it.
 
This is the information that you should have provided in the original post.

The right triangle is a red herring. It's only significance is that it shares two sides (so, three vertices) with the form that you care about.

The length of "X" is the circumference of the ellipse/4. "X" is not a straight line.

If you don't know how to calculate the circumference of an ellipse, Google it.

You are right. It was a learning process for me, I should had thought about it more before I posted. My stating, in the title, that it was wrapped was wrong.:wall:
 
You are right. It was a learning process for me, I should had thought about it more before I posted. My stating, in the title, that it was wrapped was wrong.:wall:

It's OK. We all were trying to wrap our heads around your problem. We just gotta quit calling it a hypotenuse :)
 
You are right. It was a learning process for me, I should have thought about it more before I posted. My stating, in the title, that it was wrapped was wrong.:wall:


It was well worth wading through the trash, in this thread, to read those words.

My sincerest desire is that everyone THINK ABOUT IT before they post.

I know . . . fat chance.
 








 
Back
Top