 | | Off on a tangent (or a sine, anyway)
|
|
I'm working on something that's taxing my limited knowledge of trig functions, so forgive me if my terminology is a little messed up: I need to graph a sine function with a wavelength of 324 and an amplitude of 120 passing through point (0,180) at a (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Off on a tangent (or a sine, anyway)
|
|
(...) I'm a little rusty myself, but there are bits and pieces here that don't quite add up, I think. Having a wavelength of 324 (I'm assuming you mean degrees, although you without stating degrees normally means radians) in which case your sin (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Off on a tangent (or a sine, anyway)
|
|
(...) Doh! I was trying to be so careful! I thought amplitude was the "height" from high to low--is it actually half that? At any rate, I meant to write the min occurs at y=60, so that the high points occur along the line y=180 and the low points (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Off on a tangent (or a sine, anyway)
|
|
(...) Yep! It's measured from the baseline to a peak (or a valley). (...) <grin> the term for that is half a wavelength, or Crest to Trough. Something like that. (A wavelength is measured from peak to peak, so peak to valley is 1/2 of it). (...) Yes (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Off on a tangent (or a sine, anyway)
|
|
(...) Thanks for your help, too. I just hope you did well on your test, or I'm in trouble... Dave! (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Off on a tangent (or a sine, anyway)
|
|
(...) Hehehehe... I probably did. Math is not by far my *favorite* subject, but it happens to be my strongest (for reasons that are totally beyond me). <shrug> -Shiri (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Off on a tangent (or a sine, anyway)
|
|
(...) Well, that changes everything, yes. (...) If cos(x/51.5) is close, then you are in radians (Shiri already correctly explained where the 1.11 came from, and she's correct if your wavelength of 324 is in degrees. If it's in radians then you have (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
