You are amazing thank you so much! Love the energy you bring to the lesson content as well, makes it easy to understand and I always find myself smiling :)
How come you divide by 2 twice? Would you not have to multiply by 2 to undo the division originally done? Or is is because stress = E*strain and we treated it as 2x as stiff and so it must be divided by 2 to get the correct stress? Thanks and great video! I got a question like this in an interview so this is good stuff to know
I think that when we "unconvert" the stress, we multiply the width by 2 again to recover original shape, which increases the moment of inertia in the formula's denominator by 2. That's why we have to divide the stress by two. I wish mr. Hanson had explained it.
so the n value just goes in the denominator for brass when calculating the brass stress? this is very interesting. The new stress equation for the brass becomes (MC) / (nI) if i'm looking at this correctly
Here’s the explanation why he divides by 2, (I mostly had to do this for myself, lol) as one material the strains would equal the same so take sigma brass/Ebrass = sigma steel/Esteel, solve for sigma brass = Ebrass/Esteel * sigma steel which equals .5*sigma steel
dont you need to double the brass since it is weaker you need twice as much? in this you halved the brass? if the brass is weaker you need twice as much isnt that the logic?
This might be late but for whoever might have the same confusion. Here is my two cents. When converting materials, think of the perspective of the material being converted to, rather than from. In the scenario of converting brass to steel, think from the steel's perspective since steel is twice as strong, you only need half the amount of steel to equal to strength of one full brass. Conversely, when converting to brass. Think from the brass perspective, since brass is weaker you need twice the amount of brass to equal the strength of one full steel. I hope this helps!
Didn't we divide by 2 in the beginning and then again at the end? I thought we were supposed to multiply by 2 at the end to unconvert since we divided in the beginning??
Stress is also equivalent to Force/Area. So by decreasing the area of transformed brass by factor of 2 the stress doubled which is why he had to divide by 2 at the end its counterintuitive
you saved my GPA thank more thanks a lot
meeshaas ka wad
You are amazing thank you so much! Love the energy you bring to the lesson content as well, makes it easy to understand and I always find myself smiling :)
Nice cat very cute i hate statics
Another unbelievably intuitive explanation. Very talented teacher.
Been watching your videos during college. Just graduated and reviewing for licensure exams. Been a great help. Thanks Jeff
when you said it's all about that bass i laughed so hard it was so unexpected, part of why I really enjoy ur vids, they are so chaotic
Wonderful solids lessons!! really taking the time to explain the problems along with a good sense of humor :))
thank you so much sir I am an engineering the video series is very helpful for me to understand theories you are such a amazing person
How come you divide by 2 twice? Would you not have to multiply by 2 to undo the division originally done? Or is is because stress = E*strain and we treated it as 2x as stiff and so it must be divided by 2 to get the correct stress? Thanks and great video! I got a question like this in an interview so this is good stuff to know
I also had this question.
You're right. You're supposed to multiply by n, not divide again. Little mistake, I don't know how he didn't catch that. Fantastic video though!
I think that when we "unconvert" the stress, we multiply the width by 2 again to recover original shape, which increases the moment of inertia in the formula's denominator by 2. That's why we have to divide the stress by two. I wish mr. Hanson had explained it.
what he did was right
@@jayc33day well now I’m fucking confused
Perfect timing!
so the n value just goes in the denominator for brass when calculating the brass stress? this is very interesting. The new stress equation for the brass becomes (MC) / (nI) if i'm looking at this correctly
Here’s the explanation why he divides by 2, (I mostly had to do this for myself, lol) as one material the strains would equal the same so take sigma brass/Ebrass = sigma steel/Esteel, solve for sigma brass = Ebrass/Esteel * sigma steel which equals .5*sigma steel
Thank you so much!
Sensational.
Hae, thanks for the video, really helped. Can you kindly do the same analysis, but with an "I" shaped composite beam?
dont you need to double the brass since it is weaker you need twice as much? in this you halved the brass? if the brass is weaker you need twice as much isnt that the logic?
This might be late but for whoever might have the same confusion. Here is my two cents. When converting materials, think of the perspective of the material being converted to, rather than from. In the scenario of converting brass to steel, think from the steel's perspective since steel is twice as strong, you only need half the amount of steel to equal to strength of one full brass. Conversely, when converting to brass. Think from the brass perspective, since brass is weaker you need twice the amount of brass to equal the strength of one full steel. I hope this helps!
Jeff is this still possible if the two bonded parts of a beam have triangular cross sections?
Yes, should be the same process. Just don’t increase the height of the sections, only the width.
@@1234jhanson awesome! thank you!
Greatly appreciate though would like to see a partially composite beam example using AISC.
if the conversion to MPa is kN/mm^2 , why did he convert it into N? i got the same answers, just 10^3 smaller.
MPa is N/mm2 not kN/mm2
I FREAKING LOVE YOU !!!!
YOUR KITTYYYY IS SO CUTEEEEEEEEEEE
Didn't we divide by 2 in the beginning and then again at the end? I thought we were supposed to multiply by 2 at the end to unconvert since we divided in the beginning??
Stress is also equivalent to Force/Area. So by decreasing the area of transformed brass by factor of 2 the stress doubled which is why he had to divide by 2 at the end its counterintuitive
Nice!
thanks, man, now I'm one question ahead....
liked as soon as I saw the cattt
Hello sir can you make lecture on unsymmetrical bending...?
previous video
Midterm saved
what the heck is goin on. This was the hardest solid video that I've ever watched I think
Thankssssssss
what happens when you get three different materials with three different modulus of elasticity?
What a pretty man
sizikuveka ase iwe hahah
🤯🤯🥵
Phil 4:13 "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."