Pressure and it's relationship to length.

[Bugz]

Does anyone know off-hand if length is inversely proportionate to pressure and if it is - how can I prove it?

I'm trying this - but it seems cheesy for some reason:

Pressure = Force divided by (Length X width)

IF force and width are constants and both represent one then:

Pressure = 1 divided by y x 1

Therefore: Pressure = 1/y - I'M PRETTY SURE THIS IS WRONG XD

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, in any "relationship" taken into consideration, "length" can become an issue. But as is well known, usually shorter "length" needs less "pressure" for best "effect".

Longer "lengths" may need a consistent and longer "pressure" time to maximise the "results". Ofcourse, there are several opinions on "length" and how much it effects the "relationship" there of, but those are usually jealous people talking about how the "length" isn't so important. Afterall, with only short "lengths" at your disposal, you wouldn't know of the longer "lengths" and how they "react" to "pressure".

In any case, "length" and the "pressure", or the "frequency" of the "pressure" added into the "length", is completely upon the test "subjects". Afterall, even the longer "lengths" may "buckle" under short amount of "pressure", and some of the short "lengths" may require alot of "pressure" for a significant period of time.

Hope this is an adequate answer to the problem at "hand"

 

[Bugz]

Well, in any "relationship" taken into consideration, "length" can become an issue. But as is well known, usually shorter "length" needs less "pressure" for best "effect".

Longer "lengths" may need a consistent and longer "pressure" time to maximise the "results". Ofcourse, there are several opinions on "length" and how much it effects the "relationship" there of, but those are usually jealous people talking about how the "length" isn't so important. Afterall, with only short "lengths" at your disposal, you wouldn't know of the longer "lengths" and how they "react" to "pressure".

In any case, "length" and the "pressure", or the "frequency" of the "pressure" added into the "length", is completely upon the test "subjects". Afterall, even the longer "lengths" may "buckle" under short amount of "pressure", and some of the short "lengths" may require alot of "pressure" for a significant period of time.

Hope this is an adequate answer to the problem at "hand"

Rofl - I can't believe I actually began to read that as a proper answer.

Only hit me on the second paragraph.

 

[Jeremiah]

Why, if Force and Width are constants, do you represent them with 1? If the force happened to be "1" and the width was "1" then yes, pressure would be 1/Length but I'm not quite sure why you are representing them as 1.

Edit. There is no way pressure has any relationship to length at all, unless in every scenario you are applying a Force of exactly "1" and the length of the area is exactly "1". But since this doesnt hold for the constants of Force and Length being of any value, then Pressure isnt inversely proportional to length.

 

[Rookiescot]

High width and length have by far the greatest influence on frequency. However excessive length or width can have a detrimental effect on frequency. Just ask my mate Donkey Bruce.

 

[Bugz]

Sorry for not including -> force & width are constants in the experiment - length is the only thing to change.

Anywho I discovered how to show it (product of x and y should give the same each time).

But does this seem logic to prove the relationship between pressure & 1/length? :

1/length = pressure

1/length/1 = pressure (inserting 1/length into 'length' as that is it's relationship with pressure)

1/1/length/1 = pressure

1(length)/1(1) = pressure

length/1 = pressure therefore the equals sign shows that the proportionality between pressure and 1/length must be legitimate.

I think i'm going too deep into this for only a GCSE project & confusing the shit out of myself.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Sorry for not including -> force & width are constants in the experiment - length is the only thing to change.

I think i'm going too deep into this

Oh gods i'm....i'm tempted

Must...resist!

 

[Congax]

Rep for the Tohtori!

 

[Iceforge]

not quite sure if I get your question just right, but I assume you mean that you have an object made out of X material

Now, you have X in a sealed container where the width of the object can't expand and apply pressure to see if the length/hight change?

Think you are looking for the formula Ideal Gas law:

PV = nrT
where:
P= Pressure
V= Volume
n = Amouth of substance
R = Gas constant
T = Temperature in Kelvin

So n is constant, R is constant, T is constant and you change P, hence V will change accordingly as:

P /( n * r * T) = V

This helps?

oh, and to prove the ideal gas law, read the "Proof" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

 

[Boni]

Ok for my GCSE maths badge...

Does anyone know off-hand if length is inversely proportionate to pressure and if it is - how can I prove it?

I'm trying this - but it seems cheesy for some reason:

Pressure = Force divided by (Length X width)

IF force and width are constants and both represent one then:

Pressure = 1 divided by y x 1

Therefore: Pressure = 1/y - I'M PRETTY SURE THIS IS WRONG XD

If i remember correctly, yep pressure is inversely proportional to area, and if you assume width is constant then pressure would be invesely propotional to length.

You dont want to use '1' for your equations, use capital letters to represent constants and lower case letters for variables.

pressure = force / area and area = width*length

so

p = f / (w*l);


Now width is constant (lets call it 'W') and force ( F )

p = F / (W*l);

by rearranging this a bit we get..

pl = F/W (we can call F/W something new as F and W are constants, call it K)

pl = K or even p = K/l

which is of the form x*y = some constant or x = some constant /y , i.e. an inverse relationship.

 

[Tasslehoff]

1/length/1 = pressure (inserting 1/length into 'length' as that is it's relationship with pressure)

1/1/length/1 = pressure

Why do you divide with 1 so many times?

There's no actual change between those two, and theoretically, if you divide by one on the left side you also have to divide by one on the right side. I think

But don't see the point of dividing with 1 so many times.

 

[Bugz]

Why do you divide with 1 so many times?

There's no actual change between those two, and theoretically, if you divide by one on the left side you also have to divide by one on the right side. I think

But don't see the point of dividing with 1 so many times.

That was suppose to be represent 1 / 1 / length but done with 1 as in 1/1 to make the multiplication easier.

@Boni - perfect! thanks ^^