![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
for one thing, it focuses exclusively on solid material - what about fluids and gasses? For another, the most important concepts are buried under mountains of crap - the most simple, basic and important concepts, like ductile materials failing under shear and brittle failing under normal, fluids supporting normal but flowing under shear ... that should be in the intro. Instead, the article drones on and on with graduate level tensor math that should be spit into other articles. -- 32alpha4tango ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me what is T1(e1)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.152.147 ( talk) 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.152.147 ( talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In the equation stress tensor is in transpose form actually, as it is evidenced by the matrix members following. Which is same as the stress tensor itself due to its symmetry. Just the symmetry notes should be placed before the equation, not after it. So there would be no initial wondering for those like me, not well familiar with the subject. Twowheelsbg ( talk) 17:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The "Introduction" section (now "Overview") has gone through a general revision. Hopefully not too many errors were added and the notation was not messed up too much. I plan to work a bit more on this article over the next couple of days. -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 04:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
What does it mean here stress tensor is type (0-2) - covariant ? Because in article for Caushi stress tensor is stated contravariant tensor, which I interpret as type (2-0). Twowheelsbg ( talk) 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The main theoretical sections were way too long and dense. They have been split off to Cauchy stress tensor and Euler-Cauchy stress principle, where they will be hopefully easier to read and edit. Of course, summaries of those sections should remain here with wikilinks to those articles. I will try to do that in the coming days, but please help. -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The "Further reading" list seems way too long, and some of the entries seem rather specialized (e.g. specific to soil mechanics and geology). Some entries have been already moved to the split-off articles Cauchy stress tensor and Euler-Cauchy stress principle, but the list still needs some trimming IMHO. Perhaps move some enrties to continuum mechanics? -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Key ideas such as the Euler-Cauchy stress principle have been banished to other pages. The definition of the Cauchy stress tensor is gone. The excellent figures demonstrating the balance of internal forces are gone. There is a new and rather confused section on stress analysis. There is a considerable amount of redundant material. There are absurd references to "particles" midway in the article, which defeats the whole purpose of introducing a continuum framework to define stresses, to begin with. And what purpose does that picture of a tank car serve?
Dr. Stolfi, no doubt your edits were made with the intention of improving things but excuse me when I say that they have really hurt the article. The previous version was excellent, rigorous, comprehensive and of high quality overall (thanks to the tireless efforts of editors Sanpaz and Bbanerje, who are both experts in continuum mechanics). Watching it over the years, it had also reached a degree of stability. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the energy to make the extensive edits this article needs. Commutator ( talk) 05:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a convention for the sign of simple uniaxial stress σ, or did I miss it in my reading of the article? Although I didn't see it stated anywhere, it looked to me from the direction of the force vectors that in the equation F/A = σ, tensile stress is positive (σ > 0) while compressive stress is negative (σ < 0). -- Chetvorno TALK 20:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No fault to the authors. This seems to be an historical problem guaranteed to confuse initiates to the subject.
One of the first things I ask is, "What are the units of the quantities involved?"
Stress is identified as having units of pressure in the Units section. "The dimension of stress is that of pressure...". Within the Cauchy Stress Tensor section, the unit vector is said to have units of length. Therefore the stress tensor has units of force per unit volume.
The unfortunately named stress tensor does not have units of stress if we are to believe the references.
It should be most important to clarify this to new travelers.
In places, pressure is identified with the letter T. In other text and pictorials it has the symbol sigma, confusing it with the stress tensor. This should not occur within a single article.
In pictorials the two index stress tensor is drawn as a vector as if it has a direction and magnitude! This is sure to befuzzle anyone.
I am new to this subject and having a difficult time untangling the, apparently traditional, mess. Anyone attempting to understand this subject must carefully read each line of text, checking for errors, inconsistency and misdirection. Craigde ( talk) 15:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that the picture of the car window is not helpful for the article and should be removed. The resons are:
1. At the beginning of the article, there is already a picture clearly showing the visual effect of stressed materials when viewed through a polarizing filter
2. The most dramatic changes between the two views of the car window are not caused by the stress internal to the material, but by the reflection properties of its surface. With this I refer mostly to the transparency of the window when viewed with the polarizing filter. The finer structure caused by the material intrinsic stress is only visible when the picture is view in screen size and is much fainter than the one described above.
Don't get me wrong, I think the picture is technically advanced , but I also think it illustrates the change of transparency much better than the effect of stress.
132.187.199.137 (
talk)
11:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stress (mechanics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Stress 106.196.15.64 ( talk) 13:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
1, 2, 3 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
for one thing, it focuses exclusively on solid material - what about fluids and gasses? For another, the most important concepts are buried under mountains of crap - the most simple, basic and important concepts, like ductile materials failing under shear and brittle failing under normal, fluids supporting normal but flowing under shear ... that should be in the intro. Instead, the article drones on and on with graduate level tensor math that should be spit into other articles. -- 32alpha4tango ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me what is T1(e1)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.152.147 ( talk) 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.152.147 ( talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In the equation stress tensor is in transpose form actually, as it is evidenced by the matrix members following. Which is same as the stress tensor itself due to its symmetry. Just the symmetry notes should be placed before the equation, not after it. So there would be no initial wondering for those like me, not well familiar with the subject. Twowheelsbg ( talk) 17:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The "Introduction" section (now "Overview") has gone through a general revision. Hopefully not too many errors were added and the notation was not messed up too much. I plan to work a bit more on this article over the next couple of days. -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 04:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
What does it mean here stress tensor is type (0-2) - covariant ? Because in article for Caushi stress tensor is stated contravariant tensor, which I interpret as type (2-0). Twowheelsbg ( talk) 18:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The main theoretical sections were way too long and dense. They have been split off to Cauchy stress tensor and Euler-Cauchy stress principle, where they will be hopefully easier to read and edit. Of course, summaries of those sections should remain here with wikilinks to those articles. I will try to do that in the coming days, but please help. -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The "Further reading" list seems way too long, and some of the entries seem rather specialized (e.g. specific to soil mechanics and geology). Some entries have been already moved to the split-off articles Cauchy stress tensor and Euler-Cauchy stress principle, but the list still needs some trimming IMHO. Perhaps move some enrties to continuum mechanics? -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Key ideas such as the Euler-Cauchy stress principle have been banished to other pages. The definition of the Cauchy stress tensor is gone. The excellent figures demonstrating the balance of internal forces are gone. There is a new and rather confused section on stress analysis. There is a considerable amount of redundant material. There are absurd references to "particles" midway in the article, which defeats the whole purpose of introducing a continuum framework to define stresses, to begin with. And what purpose does that picture of a tank car serve?
Dr. Stolfi, no doubt your edits were made with the intention of improving things but excuse me when I say that they have really hurt the article. The previous version was excellent, rigorous, comprehensive and of high quality overall (thanks to the tireless efforts of editors Sanpaz and Bbanerje, who are both experts in continuum mechanics). Watching it over the years, it had also reached a degree of stability. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the energy to make the extensive edits this article needs. Commutator ( talk) 05:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there a convention for the sign of simple uniaxial stress σ, or did I miss it in my reading of the article? Although I didn't see it stated anywhere, it looked to me from the direction of the force vectors that in the equation F/A = σ, tensile stress is positive (σ > 0) while compressive stress is negative (σ < 0). -- Chetvorno TALK 20:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
No fault to the authors. This seems to be an historical problem guaranteed to confuse initiates to the subject.
One of the first things I ask is, "What are the units of the quantities involved?"
Stress is identified as having units of pressure in the Units section. "The dimension of stress is that of pressure...". Within the Cauchy Stress Tensor section, the unit vector is said to have units of length. Therefore the stress tensor has units of force per unit volume.
The unfortunately named stress tensor does not have units of stress if we are to believe the references.
It should be most important to clarify this to new travelers.
In places, pressure is identified with the letter T. In other text and pictorials it has the symbol sigma, confusing it with the stress tensor. This should not occur within a single article.
In pictorials the two index stress tensor is drawn as a vector as if it has a direction and magnitude! This is sure to befuzzle anyone.
I am new to this subject and having a difficult time untangling the, apparently traditional, mess. Anyone attempting to understand this subject must carefully read each line of text, checking for errors, inconsistency and misdirection. Craigde ( talk) 15:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that the picture of the car window is not helpful for the article and should be removed. The resons are:
1. At the beginning of the article, there is already a picture clearly showing the visual effect of stressed materials when viewed through a polarizing filter
2. The most dramatic changes between the two views of the car window are not caused by the stress internal to the material, but by the reflection properties of its surface. With this I refer mostly to the transparency of the window when viewed with the polarizing filter. The finer structure caused by the material intrinsic stress is only visible when the picture is view in screen size and is much fainter than the one described above.
Don't get me wrong, I think the picture is technically advanced , but I also think it illustrates the change of transparency much better than the effect of stress.
132.187.199.137 (
talk)
11:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stress (mechanics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Stress 106.196.15.64 ( talk) 13:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)