@@paolofernandofloresrivera6244 Yo no entiendo por qué "multiplica" el primer término de nabla por cada uno de los términos del otro vector, no se supone que el producto punto es coordenada a coordenada ?
I like the video a lot, thumbs up, but why is it obvious the 1/rho in the operator for cylindrical coordinates? Is there some proof or reason for why its there?
I don't understand why the dot product of the Del operator with the field vector gives 9 terms... shouldn't it be only three (Del term in direction of Rho with the component Rho of the vector, Theta with Theta and z with z)? That is : (dr, dt, dz).(Ar, At, Az)= dr.Ar + dp.At + dz.Az This is how the dot product usually work, is there a special rule for the Del operator? why do we end up with: dr.Ar + dr.At +dr.Az + dt.Ar + dt.At + dt.Az + dz.At + dz.At + dz.Az ?
that's because he forgot the 1/r in the second line (theta line ), however when he correct it , he only work with it in the rho part, and forgot the theta part, so it isn't wrong i guess, he just didn't write it correctly :D
Excellent film, a small typo at the end in final formula (missing 1/rho) in 2nd term.
This is really helpful, but why is it obvious to insert 1/r with the theta partial derivative in the initial operator?
por que el arco se define como R(theta) entonces la el diferencial del arco es rdiferencial de theta
@@paolofernandofloresrivera6244 Yo no entiendo por qué "multiplica" el primer término de nabla por cada uno de los términos del otro vector, no se supone que el producto punto es coordenada a coordenada ?
thanks, helped me a lot! (needed this in fluid dynamics)
Thanks a lot for the explanation. Was looking for this explanation for a long time
Oh man, this helped me a LOT for understanding curvilinear continuum mechanics! Thank you so much!
I have always wondered why the rho is within the derivative. The shorthand is very misleading. Thank you so much for pointing this out.
I like the video a lot, thumbs up, but why is it obvious the 1/rho in the operator for cylindrical coordinates? Is there some proof or reason for why its there?
Thanks!! Needed it for atmospheric dynamics
You saved my life, thank you!!!
I don't understand why the dot product of the Del operator with the field vector gives 9 terms... shouldn't it be only three (Del term in direction of Rho with the component Rho of the vector, Theta with Theta and z with z)?
That is : (dr, dt, dz).(Ar, At, Az)= dr.Ar + dp.At + dz.Az
This is how the dot product usually work, is there a special rule for the Del operator?
why do we end up with: dr.Ar + dr.At +dr.Az + dt.Ar + dt.At + dt.Az + dz.At + dz.At + dz.Az ?
Great video, thanks :) But there is a 1/r missing in second term of last eqn.
Thanks sir...really well explained
Thx, this tutorial reaaaallyy helped me
Thank you. It helps me out
What a nice video!!!
Thank you. Very helpful.
Thanks! This was very useful
Thank you !!!I did the same mistake too ..
Thanks u very muchhhhhhhh....h tends to infinity 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
thanks a lot! really helped me!
a lot of thanks to u
yr work go great
i think the last equation is wrong. There is a missing part 1/r at theta part
that's because he forgot the 1/r in the second line (theta line ), however when he correct it , he only work with it in the rho part, and forgot the theta part, so it isn't wrong i guess, he just didn't write it correctly :D
Too long and boring
myth explained!! thankss
greaaaaaaaattttttt that was awesome
Russian math, best math
wow
If you say they are all unit vectors, then it is nothing interesting.