Replies

1. 
   saschafer | Jun 09, 2009 04:27pm | #1

   "Resultant angle" is a generic term, so there are different formulas depending on the situation. Let me know if the below is not what you're looking for.

   Assume we have a leg or spindle that is angled A degrees from the vertical when viewing the front elevation, and B degrees from the vertical when viewing the side elevation. Then the angle of the leg or spindle when viewed in plan, C, is:

   C = tan^-1 ( sin B / sin A )

   And the resultant angle D (the angle of the leg or spindle in its own plane) is:

   D = sin^-1 ( sin² A + sin² B)^1/2

   For example, if A = 5° and B = 15°, then C is 71.4° (in plan view, with the front of the object at the bottom, and 0° being due east), and D is 15.8°.

   -Steve

    

1. 
   dustymctevish | Jun 09, 2009 08:15pm | #2

   I'll give it a try,

    

   Thanks 

2. 
   WillGeorge | Jun 10, 2009 01:47am | #3

   C = tan-1 ( sin B / sin A )

   And the resultant angle D (the angle of the leg or spindle in its own plane) is:

   D = sin-1 ( sin2 A + sin2 B)1/2

   For example, if A = 5° and B = 15°, then C is 71.4° (in plan view, with the front of the object at the bottom, and 0° being due east), and D is 15.8°.

   Steve.. Do you design aeroplanes? I cracked up on that reply! You just made my day with a good belly laugh... I love Math but not that good at it!

   Thank you for making my day a bit better with a smile on my face.. I Really loved it!...

   Edited 6/9/2009 6:50 pm by WillGeorge

1. 
   saschafer | Jun 10, 2009 02:14am | #4

   "Do you design aeroplanes?"

   No, but over the years I have designed lasers, cyclotron power supplies for medical imaging, ground support equipment for satellites, and gas handling equipment for nuclear weapons-grade tritium, among other things.

   Why do you ask?

   -Steve

    

1. 
   WillGeorge | Jun 10, 2009 02:49am | #5

   Why do you ask? I just read your post and I had a good day!

   I can do almost anything with my OLD HANDS . My mind does not work with my hands so I am not a good carver..

   Your words.. Why do you ask? Because I thought you may have been a designer of the tactical Nuke weapons we had in 1960 or thereabouts that would wipe out both sides! I was in Germany then and we all knew if we fired the weapon we went with the so called enemy..

   And I asked just because I found the post funny! I do not understand math! I try but my little brain just likes women and wood...

   I think some hate for me and I wonder why?

    

1. 
   saschafer | Jun 10, 2009 03:09am | #6

   The "Why do you ask?" part was just a joke. I knew why you asked...

   -Steve

    

2. 
   WillGeorge | Jun 10, 2009 03:48am | #7

   I think I understand... Huggs!

2. 
   gofigure57 | Jun 12, 2009 05:50pm | #14

   "gas handling equipment for nuclear weapons-grade tritium, among other things"

     Steve, When I was in the military as  nuclear weapons tech  one of the procedures we performed would be changing out the tritium canisters on the war heads.  The tritium detectors were set to go off at one parts per million, that is some nasty gas.  Your design resume is very impressive.

   Tom

1. 
   saschafer | Jun 12, 2009 06:05pm | #15

   We never dealt with the real stuff; we leak-checked everything with helium, and then it all got shipped off to Savannah River for final assembly and testing. As I recall, the leak requirement was 10-12 l-atm / sec, meaning that it would take over 30,000 years for one litre of gas to escape.

   -Steve

    

3. 
   dustymctevish | Jun 10, 2009 10:18pm | #8

   Ran the numbers and its the formula I’m looking for. 

   <!----><!----> <!---->

   Thanks 

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Jun 10, 2009 11:39pm | #9

   I'm confused.  Steve Schafer gave you the formula in his first reply. 

1. 
   dustymctevish | Jun 11, 2009 12:31am | #10

   He sure did and I responded by telling him I would give it a try.  Now that I ran the numbers I wanted him to know that the formula was the correct one since in his first reply he was concerned that it may not be what I was looking for.

   <!----><!----> <!---->

   Is that okay? 

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Jun 11, 2009 12:55am | #11

   Sorry, it was the present test (I am) that led me to think you were still looking for the formula.  My confusion.

2. 
   dustymctevish | Jun 11, 2009 03:47am | #12

   Don’t you mean “present tense”? 

3. 
   SteveSchoene | Jun 11, 2009 05:14am | #13

   yes--just another example of how typo's and small glitches can end up wrong.