MHB Is the Expression Dimensionally Consistent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GreenGoblin
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the dimensional consistency of two equations involving potential energy and force. The first equation, U = (EAδ²)/(2ℓ), is deemed dimensionally consistent when δ is considered a length, as scalar constants can be ignored. In the second equation, F = (EAδ)/ℓ + mgℓ, both terms on the right must match the dimensions of the left side, but the second term is inconsistent due to the additional factor ℓ, which is not dimensionless. The participants conclude that δ should be accepted as a length for consistency. Overall, the analysis confirms that the first equation is consistent while the second is not.
GreenGoblin
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Which of the following are dimensionally consistent:

U = \frac{EA\delta^{2}}{2\ell}, F = \frac{EA\delta}{l} + mg\ell.

Right so. I get the concept, but the thing is I don't have (nor do I know where to find) expressions for each of these components. A is area so that is L^{2}. E is a 'pressure' which I have as ML^{-1}T^{-2}. This is never having done any mechanicsy type stuff before. l is just length. But thing is U is a 'potential energy', which I have no expretion for so I don't know the LHS of the first which is kind of the point of what I need to do. I also don't know what to do with a scalar multiple (the 1/2)? if this affects it at all? And the delta, I have no indication what it represents.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
1.) $\displaystyle U=\frac{EA\delta^2}{2L}$

Since you state $U$ is energy, which is $\displaystyle \frac{\text{mass}\times\text{length}^2}{\text{time}^2}$, let's see what $\delta$ must be if there is dimensional consistency.

Pressure is force per area, so $EA$ has units of force or $\displaystyle \frac{\text{mass}\times\text{length}}{\text{time}^2}$

Scalar constants may be ignored as they are dimensionless.

So we are left with:

$\displaystyle \text{length}=\frac{\delta^2}{\text{length}}$

So, if the units of $\delta$ are length, then it is consistent.

Can you try the second one?
 
MarkFL said:
1.) $\displaystyle U=\frac{EA\delta^2}{2L}$

Since you state $U$ is energy, which is $\displaystyle \frac{\text{mass}\times\text{length}^2}{\text{time}^2}$, let's see what $\delta$ must be if there is dimensional consistency.

Pressure is force per area, so $EA$ has units of force or $\displaystyle \frac{\text{mass}\times\text{length}}{\text{time}^2}$

Scalar constants may be ignored as they are dimensionless.

So we are left with:

$\displaystyle \text{length}=\frac{\delta^2}{\text{length}}$

So, if the units of $\delta$ are length, then it is consistent.

Can you try the second one?
Hi, thanks a lot. In the second, we have two terms. I take it both would have to be consistent? I.e. then the RHS would be 2 x (whatever) which has dimension of (whatever). I get that the first term is consistent, but the 2nd is not.. if g has the dimension of acceleration which I believe is correct? Also, is delta being length likely to make sense? I have no indication of what delta should represent.
 
I suspect that $\delta$ does have units of length, and so the first is consistent.

You are correct on the second one, both terms on the right have to be consistent with the left side. The first term is consistent as you discovered, but unless the factor $\ell$ is dimensionless, then this second term is not consistent. By Newton's second law, we know $mg$ is a force.
 
MarkFL said:
I suspect that $\delta$ does have units of length, and so the first is consistent.

You are correct on the second one, both terms on the right have to be consistent with the left side. The first term is consistent as you discovered, but unless the factor $\ell$ is dimensionless, then this second term is not consistent. By Newton's second law, we know $mg$ is a force.
Yes I noticed that the 2nd term is just ma = F but multiplied by an additional l which makes it inconsistent. I thank you for your help and I am confident with this question now. I decided to accept delta as a length, it makes more sense that way. Gracias.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Back
Top