Moment of Inertia, working backwards

Niall
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I've to work out b & d in this equasion.

I=bd^3/12

I know that the ratio between b & d in this case is 1.166 and I am given the value of I.

It is an engineering problem as the software will only allow the use of square/rectangular or round section but we are using H section and we are allowed to substitue a rectangle of the same h/w ratio and moment of inertia.

This kind of thing was never what I was much good at although I believe it may be possible to work out but I don't know how.
Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Niall said:
I know that the ratio between b & d in this case is 1.166 and I am given the value of I.
Do you mean ##\frac{b}{d} = 1.166##? Then ##b = 1.166d##, put that into your equation for the moment of inertia, and solve for ##d##.
 
Yes , I managed to figure it out a few min ago.

Ixx = (D (1.116) * D ^ 3) / 12

D^4 = I * 12 * 1.116

D = 4√ I * 12 * 1.116
 
In your original post you used "d". In your response you used "D". It is a bad idea to switch symbols like that.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top