Timeline for Compressibility of Solids
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2022 at 11:17 | comment | added | GiorgioP-DoomsdayClockIsAt-90 | @fertilizerspike The measurability of isothermal compressibility (or its inverse, the bulk modulus) of solids is a fact, not a matter of opinion (see, for instance values at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_modulus ) | |
| Nov 5, 2022 at 3:32 | comment | added | fertilizerspike | Disagree but okay | |
| Nov 5, 2022 at 3:22 | vote | accept | Physics Enthusiast | ||
| Nov 5, 2022 at 3:18 | answer | added | Chemomechanics | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 5, 2022 at 0:56 | comment | added | Jon Custer | @fertilizerspike - solids are measurably compressible. With enough force one can compress them quite nicely. | |
| Nov 4, 2022 at 23:13 | comment | added | Physics Enthusiast | Thanks for the feedback! I will be sure to separate the questions in the future. | |
| Nov 4, 2022 at 22:54 | comment | added | march | Please limit your posts to one question. The first two questions are related, so they're fine, but the third should really be posted as its own question. That said, in that formula, $V$ is the potential energy not the electric potential. Sometimes people are a little lazy with their language and use the word "potential" when they mean "potential energy", and that can be confusing, but one gets used to it. In the context of electrostatics, the electric field is the derivative of the electric potential, and if we multiply both sides by a test charge $q$, we get that equation above back. | |
| Nov 4, 2022 at 22:31 | history | edited | Physics Enthusiast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 491 characters in body
|
| Nov 4, 2022 at 22:21 | history | asked | Physics Enthusiast | CC BY-SA 4.0 |