Fishing Rods

Maths Portfolio II Matthew Shim Maths SL Mr Davies Word Count (XXXX)

Leo has a fishing rod with overall length 230 cm. The table shown below gives the distances for each of the line guides from the tip of his fishing rod.
Guide number (from tip) distance from tip (cm)

1 10

2 23

3 38

4 55

5 74

6 96

7 120

8 149

In this case, there are two dependant variables: the guide number is dependent on the length of the rod and the distance from tip is dependent on guide number and therefore also the length of the rod. For the purpose of graphing the data and showing parameters and constraints algebraically, let x be the guide number from tip and let y be the distance from tip. As x is the number of the guide, it must be an integer value and as there are eight guides (not including the guide at the tip of the rod), the parameters of x are:

When the data is mapped out on a graph, it is as below:

Leo's Fishing Rod

160 140 distance from tip (cm) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Series1

Guide Number (from tip)

N.B. The (0,0) guide is the guide at the tip of the rod which is not included in the numbered guides, as it is a guide at the tip, it is 0 cm from the tip. Using matrix methods, it is possible to find a quadratic function that closely fits the real function. As the form of a quadratic is:

We can use the first three terms of the table to try and find a quadratic that fits the curve.

Let

be A.

Therefore one quadratic solution that fits the first three terms is:

Thus the resulting table would be as follows:

1 10 2 23 3 38 4 55 5 74 6 95 7 118 8 143

The quadratic equation can be plotted against the original function:

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Series2 Series1

The graph shows that for the first 5 values, the quadratic is the same as the original function. However it begins to deviate from the sixth guide upwards.

The same process can be repeated with different x values:

Let

be A

The resulting table is as follows:

1 10 2 22.57 3 37.57 4 55 5 74.86 6 97.14 7 121.86 8 149

The graph with two functions is shown below:

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Series2 Series1

N.B. Squares are the original function, diamonds are the quadratic function:

The graph and table comparisons show that this quadratic function closely replicates the original function, although it does not do so exactly. While the most effective way to find the best quadratic equation would be to go through all 56 combinations of 3 x values in the matrix, this is impractical given the scope of this assignment. The quadratic function shown above is logically the best quadratic to use as it takes the first, last and middle value into account. The same matrix method can be used to find a cubic function which would be more accurate than a quadratic function.

Let

be A

The resulting cubic equation is the same as the first quadratic equation found:

Therefore this graph would not be a cubic graph. Again, it is possible to use a different combination of x values as with the quadratic to find a better fitting cubic function using simultaneous equations.

This time the last 4 values will be used.

Let

be A

The resulting table is as follows:

1 -54 2 -10 3 24 4 51 5 74 6 96 7 120 8 149

The graph of this cubic is mapped below with the original function.

200

150

100 Series2 50 Series1

0 0 -50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

-100

The problem with this cubic is that it has negative y values. As the y values indicate the distance from the tip, it is impossible to have a negative value. Therefore in this case, there would be no y value for the x values 1 & 2. The graph shows that the cubic function is only accurate for the 4 values placed in the simultaneous equation. The problem with both quadratic and cubic functions is that they are only accurate for the values placed into the matrix and dont take into account all eight values. The only way to do this is to have a polynomial expression that uses all eight values.

1 1 1 1 1 1 128 64 32 16 8 4 2187 729 243 81 27 9 16384 4096 1024 256 64 16 Let 78125 15625 3125 625 125 25 279936 46656 7776 1296 216 36 823543 117649 16807 2401 343 49 2097152 262144 32768 4096 512 64 a 10 b 23 c 38 55 d A ! e 74 f 96 g 120 h 149 10 a 23 b 38 c 55 d 1 1 !A A A 74 e 96 f 120 g 149 h 10 a 23 b 38 c d ! A 1 55 74 e 96 f 120 g 149 h

1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 !A 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1

 a 0.002579365079 b  0.07777777778 c 0.9555555556 d !  6.152777778 e 22.25138889 f  43.76944445 g 55.79047619  19 h *Using Casio fx-9860G graphic design calculator The resulting polynomial is:

As the polynomial takes all eight values into account, the coefficient of determination R2 is very close to 1. As it goes up to 13 significant figures, and that this portfolio only works in 4 significant figures, it can be taken that the equation fits the original function. A regression tool can be used to find a more accurate equation that is equal to the original function. In this case the regression tool can find an equation where R squared equals 1. The graph is shown below.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Series2 Poly. (Series2) y = 0.0015x6 - 0.0349x5 + 0.3202x4 - 1.4095x3 + 4.042x2 + 7.0369x + 0.0067 R = 1

The R squared value is 1 in the resulting polynomial, thus it can be concluded that the polynomial is the equation of the original function. It is interesting to note that excel finds the polynomial to be of order six instead of order seven as found by the matrix method above. This means that the regression tool doesnt need to go to the seventh order to find an R squared value of 1. The polynomial function found above is the best fitting of all the functions found. This is because of the R squared value of 1 and the fact that the regression tool has found a polynomial that passes through all the points. Using the quadratic model , the ninth guide would be at 179 cm

rounded up to the nearest whole centimetre. The implications of putting a ninth guide onto the rod are that the rod is the same length and we have to account for the grip and the reel. Assuming that the ninth guide can fit, it will not have any effect or could unbalance the rod.

These formulas may still apply for a rod that is 70 cm longer than Leos. Marks fishing rod is 300 cm, and also has 8 guides not including the guide at the tip. The relationship between guide number (x) and distance (y) is shown below.
guide number (from tip) distance from tip (cm)

1 10

2 22

3 34

4 48

5 64

6 81

7 102

8 124

The best quadratic model that was found using Leos fishing rod was compared with the values shown above. The resulting graph is shown below.

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Where the diamonds are the quadratic function original function for Marks fishing rod.

, and squares are the

The graph of the original function (squares) looks like a flatter version of the quadratic function that has been found, and thus it is possible to manipulate the quadratic to model the data of Marks fishing rod.

In order to do this, we must realise that the half parabola must be stretched horizontally. Thus:  

By making the half parabola wider, it will fit the curve of Marks rod.