Back
to top
mechanics non-uniform framework question
Watch this thread
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Abraham_Otaku
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Abraham_Otaku
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
they said the thickness of AC and Bc was twice of AB, so if AB has a unit mass of m, then BC and AC should have a unit mass of 2m, and hence have masses 4msqrt17 and 4msqrt13 respectively.. and not what they showed in the ms.. Where am I going with this?
Last edited by Abraham_Otaku; 1 month ago
0
reply
mqb2766
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
(Original post by Abraham_Otaku)
they said the thickness of AC and Bc was twice of AB, so if AB has a unit mass of m, then BC and AC should have a unit mass of 2m, and hence have masses 4msqrt17 and 4msqrt13 respectively.. and not what they showed in the ms.. Where am I going with this?
they said the thickness of AC and Bc was twice of AB, so if AB has a unit mass of m, then BC and AC should have a unit mass of 2m, and hence have masses 4msqrt17 and 4msqrt13 respectively.. and not what they showed in the ms.. Where am I going with this?
Last edited by mqb2766; 1 month ago
0
reply
Abraham_Otaku
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
(Original post by mqb2766)
Guess its a badly worded question. Twice as thick must refer to its twice both the width and height, so the mass will be 4 times the original wire. Its not unreasonable to assume "thick" applied to only one dimension, in which case youd be correct.
Guess its a badly worded question. Twice as thick must refer to its twice both the width and height, so the mass will be 4 times the original wire. Its not unreasonable to assume "thick" applied to only one dimension, in which case youd be correct.
0
reply
mqb2766
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#5
(Original post by Abraham_Otaku)
Ah that makes more sense now(though these ambiguous questions don't!) Thanks
Ah that makes more sense now(though these ambiguous questions don't!) Thanks
0
reply
Abraham_Otaku
Badges:
11
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
(Original post by mqb2766)
NP. In terms of the common use of the word thick, you're correct as youd say something like a wall was twice as thick. However in terms of the cross section of a wire, it would be unusual (at best) to double only one dimension. Youd expect it to be circular and so doubling the radius would quadruple the area. But you'd hope the question would be clearer to avoid ambiguity.
NP. In terms of the common use of the word thick, you're correct as youd say something like a wall was twice as thick. However in terms of the cross section of a wire, it would be unusual (at best) to double only one dimension. Youd expect it to be circular and so doubling the radius would quadruple the area. But you'd hope the question would be clearer to avoid ambiguity.
0
reply
T!gger34
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
