Visit ilectureonline.com for more math and science lectures! In this video I will show you how to calculate the thermal volume expansion of an aluminum cube.
excuse me sir but i do not really understand the formular.in our physics course the formular is given without 1 included and when i checked on google all the formulas given hat no 1 included.please what is actually the difference?
With all due respect, i just cant comprehend the choice of using the volume expansion coefficient instead of the linear one first, then cubed it. I guess not so much complicated formula for a "theoretically" correct answer.
The last equasion without the error (Vf=Lf^3) doesn't seem more complicated than leaving parts of the solved binomial out. Why would you rather take the one with a slight error?
@@MichelvanBiezen I think what he means is why change it, when it's L^3 seemed like just as easy an equation to deal with. Seems like by using the changed one, you're just introducing error however insignificant with no practical gain. If the initial equation was overly complex I'd understand
I stumbled upon this video and I immediately recognized you! I took your physics 1A course at Elco last year! I feel like I'm back in your class!
Wow i learn a lot
excuse me sir but i do not really understand the formular.in our physics course the formular is given without 1 included and when i checked on google all the formulas given hat no 1 included.please what is actually the difference?
Vf = Vo + change in V = V0 + (V0) (3) (a) (change in T) = Vo (1 + (3) (a) (change in T)) It is just algebra.
With all due respect, i just cant comprehend the choice of using the volume expansion coefficient instead of the linear one first, then cubed it. I guess not so much complicated formula for a "theoretically" correct answer.
There is a very sight difference between the two answers, but for practical reasons it is irrelevant.
The last equasion without the error (Vf=Lf^3) doesn't seem more complicated than leaving parts of the solved binomial out. Why would you rather take the one with a slight error?
The amount is so small that it is not significant. Try it and you'll see.
@@MichelvanBiezen I think what he means is why change it, when it's L^3 seemed like just as easy an equation to deal with. Seems like by using the changed one, you're just introducing error however insignificant with no practical gain. If the initial equation was overly complex I'd understand
why my prof have 23x10-6 in aluminum?
Depends on the source. There are different values given and range from 21 to 24
ohh, thank you!
Why would I bother with these formulas, if I can find the exact approximation and I would have to memorize 1 formula instead of 3?
These videos are about learning the principles and the techniques.
I have never seen a teacher so well dressed
The pitch of your voice is changing from time to time or it's just me