i see your point however i am basing my calculations on what one of my lecturers emailed me~:~
"If, for example, your horizontal axis shows 5.0mm of extension, and you measure this as being say 220mm, it follows that 1mm in reality is represented by 44mm on your axis (220 divided by 5)...
i havve just worked out on the graph the horizontal graph measures 245 mm, the extension is 4 mm.
to get 1 mm i divide 245 by 4 = 61.25
0.02 x 61.25 gets the offset which is 1.225
0.505 x 1.2225 = 0.62
so do i add 0.1 and 0.62 to get 0.72
1mm is the measurement, 0.6 mm is where the line of best fit meets, so i calculated 1-0.6 which is 0.4mm and x that by 0.505 mm. That gives me 0.202mm so if i add this to 0.6mm that gives me 0.8mm hence i have drawn a horizontal line and read off the force, is that not correct?
i have the instructions on how to work it out but makes little sense to me:
Measure the horizontal axis in mm. How many mm extension shown on the horizontal line is represented by your actual measurement? Do a proportional calculation to work out what 1mm in reality equates to on the graph...
From my results i have found that wood and brass is not inherently stiff. What examples are there of using wood and brass, that by changing it's shape or distribution would make it stiffer?
Hi there, I am currently looking to measure the tensile strength using Young’s Modulus for steel and brass.
My results I have obtained are comparable with published values of E. My question is regarding the formulae, the one I used was: E = F/x X l/a
Where a is the original cross section...