Is the Calculation of Strain Due to Own Weight Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chetzread
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Strain
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of elongation due to the weight of an object, specifically questioning the accuracy of a provided calculation related to strain. The context appears to be homework-related, focusing on the application of relevant equations and unit conversions.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suspects that the calculation of elongation due to its own weight is incorrect and presents their calculation for review.
  • Another participant expresses disbelief at the result of four kilometers, questioning its plausibility given the original length of 150 meters.
  • Several participants point out potential mistakes in unit conversion, suggesting that the calculations need to be revisited.
  • Concerns are raised about the correctness of the units used in the calculation of Young's modulus (E).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not seem to agree on the correctness of the original calculation, with multiple viewpoints regarding the accuracy of the results and the methods used. The discussion remains unresolved as participants continue to challenge the calculations.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of missing assumptions regarding the calculations, particularly in unit conversions and the application of formulas. The original problem's parameters may also influence the results, but these aspects are not fully clarified.

chetzread
Messages
798
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


for the elongation due to its own weight , i suspect the calculation of elonation due to its own weight is wrong ...

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I think it should be (3456.3825)(75) / (300x10^-6)(200x10^3) = 4320m = 4320x10^3 mm , right ? [/B]
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20160917_131127.jpg
    IMG_20160917_131127.jpg
    27.1 KB · Views: 494
Physics news on Phys.org
Four kilometers?!
 
Bystander said:
Four kilometers?!
anything wrong with my calculation ?
 
Given that the original length is only 150 meters? What's your conclusion?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chetzread
Bystander said:
Given that the original length is only 150 meters? What's your conclusion?
sorry , here's the second image
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20160917_131256.jpg
    IMG_20160917_131256.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 443
You've made mistake(s) in the conversion to meters (handwritten work, 2nd image). Try it again.
 
Bystander said:
You've made mistake(s) in the conversion to meters (handwritten work, 2nd image). Try it again.
I'm looking at the units of E in his calculation, and it doesn't seem correct to me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chetzread

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K