This user may have left Wikipedia. Sanpaz has not edited Wikipedia since 20 October 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Sanpaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place ((helpme)) before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  You may also be interested in the civil engineering WikiProject. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your suggestion on the soil article, and I just wanted to make sure you are watching the article soil as we are having a discussion there on this subject. – Basar (talk · contribs) 05:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Basar,

That was a fast response from you. You have to tell me how you monitor the pages that quickly. In response to your concern, I did see the soil article. I don't know if you think the changes I made are appropriate or if the suggestion of a new article Soil(engineering) is also appropriate.

By the way, thanks for the welcoming note on my Talk page. (I am not sure if this is the proper way to reply to messages in the Talk page (got it)) Sanpaz 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, and both of the ways you have responded are fine, although I can see you saw my note at the top of my page requesting this particular way to keep the conversations together, I'm flexible with both. To be alerted of changes made to pages you are interested in, you can use the watchlist feature. One of the buttons on the top of articles says "watch" and when you press it, it goes into your watchlist. To view your watchlist, you use the "my watchlist" button on the top right of the screen. – Basar (talk · contribs) 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did know about the watchlist feature, but I was just surprised with your fast response, I thought you knew of an extra feature to see new edits without having to check the mywatchlist manually. I will talk to you later about the whole soil article, and what I think we could do. For know, I've got to sleep. Sanpaz 05:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a sandbox re-write of the Soil article most of today. It's not intended to cut-and-paste replace the article, just to try out some of my article improvement ideas. Besides what I have done (mostly removing soil science weighted content), the article also needs to have substantial content developed by other-than-soil-scientist folks. If you get a chance, take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! -- Paleorthid (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Technology Barnstar
		I'd like to award you this Technology Barnstar for the excellent contributions you've been making this year. Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed... keep up the good work! --Explodicle (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Stress (physics) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Was an error. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have a good PDF book on elasticity - "Elasticity Theory, applications, and numerics" by M. Sadd. I could send it to you but you don't have an email address! PAR (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PAR, I just enabled the email. Thanks for the book. I always like to have good books. I also have another book I can send you. I will chat to you later about the first section of the Stress (physics) page. I have some questions and suggestions. Sanpaz (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close the debate on merger of Saint-Venant's compatibility condition. The point is that it is only the rank 2 case that is applied to Elasticity, but the theorem holds for all ranks of symmetric tensor fields.Billlion (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can close the debate. I am only familiar with theory of elasticity. So, I cannot comment on the more general cases. I would certainly like to know more about the topic, so let me know what is a good source to read about it.Sanpaz (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've done an excellent job. I am nominating this article as an FA candidate. --Sandycx (Talk) 11:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. After another author has changed the lead drastically, I have worked on it again and worked in my sandbox. I had reverted his edit since I found it poor (the reason are on his talk page) in too many aspects, however it brought in some nice ideas and I tried to rephrase them more properly. I do not want to disguise that it was his original idea, so I offered him to move the construction to his sandbox. I would like to know your opinion on what we were doing with the lead. Of course, I would also like to hear your comments on the talk page to my last to edit, but I have also full understanding, if for the time being you are occupied with other stuff. Looking forward to reading your comments. Tomeasy (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H. I moved one of your comments on the von Mises criterion talk page to the correct section, because I have no doubt you agree that it is better placed there. If that is not the case, let me offer my apologies and do not hesitate to undo this action. After all it's your comment and I have no right in editing it. Tomeasy (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you had removed the section on equivalent stress from Stress (physics). I was linking to the idea on the Drucker-Prager yield criterion page. Now that link leads to the Stress (physics) page from where it's difficult for the reader to track down what the equivalent stress mean without doing a word search on the page. Do you have a solution to the problem? Bbanerje (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the equivalent stress concept does not actually belong to the stress article. It does not explain or help explain the concept of stress. Equivalent stress is more of a concept to help calculate yielding of a material. It is good to mention it, but not as a section. So, my solution would be to change the link to von Mises. Let me know what you think. Sanpaz (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not obvious to me how the articles should be merged. The resulting article might become too long/diffuse and take ages to load. I'll try to continue to add more information on yield surfaces as I get the time but I'll leave the organization of the material to you (and others). Cheers. Bbanerje (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanpaz, I've noticed you've done a lot of really great work on technical articles and wanted to get you opinion about introductions.

Technical articles at wikipedia are notorious for becoming more complex over time, to the point where lay people can't understand them. I think this is perfectly natural when it's an expert that's writing. Inevitably, people more familiar with a concept come along and make the article more rigorous, to the point where only a tiny fraction of readers will grasp anything written there.

So my thought, and I think it might make a good Wikiproject if it isn't already, is that introductions to technical articles should be simple and clear, written without any obscure vernacular so that readers unfamiliar with the topic can grasp it. They should explain the concept broadly and explain why it is important. Here's an example - granted the article's title/definition has changed over time, but I think it demonstrates my point;

(from 2004 version)

Von Mises stress, ${\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\sigma \ _{v))))$ , is used to estimate yield criteria for ductile materials. It is calculated by combining stresses in two or three dimensions, with the result compared to the tensile strength of the material loaded in one dimension. Von Mises stress is also useful for calculating the fatigue strength.

(current version)

The von Mises yield criterion^[1] suggests that the yielding of materials begins when the second deviatoric stress invariant ${\displaystyle \ J_{2))$ reaches a critical value ${\displaystyle \ k}$. For this reason, it is sometimes called the ${\displaystyle \ J_{2))$-plasticity or ${\displaystyle \ J_{2))$ flow theory. It is part of a plasticity theory that applies best to ductile materials, such as metals. Prior to yield, material response is assumed to be elastic.

The current version may be more rigorous, more technically correct, but it is unintelligible to the vast majority of our readers, while the older version, as flawed as it was, conveyed a complicated concept in a non-technical way.

So my proposal is that technical articles should have simple and clear introductions, written for a reader with no special background. They should give the reader a solid grasp of a concept, real world implications and why it is important. In the example I give, I'd like to see as much effort keeping the into simple as making it accurate. What's your opinion? --Duk 22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duk. I do agree with the notion that the introduction must be made as simple as possible so that anyone with no background on the topic can get a clear understanding of the basic idea of the article. There is a fine balance between being technically rigorous and keeping things simple. Needless to say, it is easier said than done. So far, I have been at fault for leaning more towards the former, not because I do not agree with simple definitions but because of the difficulty of explaining things in a simple manner. It is a matter of time and participation of several people on the article that can achieve a better introduction.

I do think, however, that the precise definition should not be avoided, regardless of how complicated it is. It is the task of all editors to come up with creative ways to explain these complex definitions. I have not been that creative ;)

For the particular example you mentioned, I believe the second paragraph of the the current introduction in the von Mises yield criterion article addresses the explanation given in the 2004 definition you provided. It would be a matter of reorganizing and improving how the ideas of the first and second paragraph are presented. I will try to come up with a better intro for that article.

Let me know what you think. Sanpaz (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, it is easier said than done -- you got that right!

Let me know what you think. This particular article isn't that bad, I'd look for a way to get the main concept across in a simple way, without technical jargon or vernacular.

Mostly I'm trying to formulate a guideline or some rules of thumb for technical article intros. I haven't looked at the MOS - trying to keep an open mind. I'll look later on tonight. --Duk 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanpaz,

I wrote on Talk:Deformation (mechanics) a while ago about the titles for the articles, Finite and Infinitesimal Strain Theory, and still don't feel satisfied on why including "theory" makes them broader than not including the word - if you could reply again on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate it.

Also, I noticed some issues brought up on your talk page about non-technical introductions. I believe that moving these articles to names without the "theory" could allow a non-technical introduction (as part of "Finite strain", for example), by saying what it is in words instead of diving straight into the tensors.

I guess I don't understand why you'd like to keep "theory", and I think that there should be a way to make a better general-audience introduction to the topic.

I'll be watching your talk page and the articles' talk pages. Thanks,

Awickert (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awickert, I replied in the Talk:Deformation (mechanics) sanpaz (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to tell you that I love your illustrations. Keep up the good work! Torf (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sapnaz - Really like your illustrations. I am a graduate student of Mechanical Engineering and would like to learn to make such graphics. Any suggestions and guides you can point me to? Thanks!--Sameerraor (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sameerraor. I use inkscape for illustrations. It is an open source software similar to Adobe Illustrator. With it you generate svg files, which can be edited by anyone later on. Inkscape comes with tutorial files, but you can learn from the web too. Try it out, and if you want to know more details on how to do specific things with inkscape let me know and I might be able to help you. I do not know everything about inkscape, but enough for simple illustrations. sanpaz (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, question: why do you repeatedly remove the link to the article comparing the steady state and the critical state? You say it is because it is a blog. But so what? The article you are trying to remove has been called "brilliant" by none other than Dick Goodman so I am not sure why you wish to delete it. The article has generated a lot of discussion among researchers at MIT and other places and is considered to be very credible.

What you are doing is spamming. Please read Wikipedia:EL and Wikipedia:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a place for opinion. The link you are promoting is a review (opinion) on a book by you perhaps. How is that something to add to an encyclopedia? Wikipedia is about facts. I think that is as much I can say about that. So, please do not add an external link to a blog. sanpaz (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for the excellent images you have produced. I am going to use some of them in my lectures on solid mechanics if you don't mind. Hopefully they will communicate the concepts better than any image I can make.137.222.184.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanpaz, I understand why you did not wish to have my link at the top of your article, however in future please do not mark my changes as vandalism. To quote wikipedia. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

My intention was to teach Mohr's circle (and how to use it) in a simplistic and step by step way that would relate to a first year engineering student. One of the reasons I decided to do this was because when I was a first year, I did not understand Mohr's circle, and could not find a good source on the internet to teach it to me properly, step by step. So I think this could be a very valuable resource to many students. I do however recognise that certain explanations in my article could be written better.

So 2 questions: 1. Is there some way that the link to my page can be placed somewhere that would be more visible to potential students that land on your article on Mohr's circle (that is, more visible than the external links section). I imagine a handful of pupils will click on your article, be scared by what they see, and click back without checking the external links... 2. IF not, are you happy with the way I have added my link to the external links part of the page? If not, please edit, or suggest a way for me to edit it.

Thanks, Tal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taltastic (talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tal, I did acknowledge my mistake right away, when I saw my mistake. And I don't know how to revert the marking of an edit as vandalism. For that I am sorry. Please read Talk:Mohr's_circle.sanpaz (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the wikiversity link to the top of the article, as you suggested.sanpaz (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh. sorry, I'm new on here, I didn't realise I could that each page had a talk section. Thanks for moving the link to the top of the page, as you have. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.253.198 (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohr's Circle explanation 2

Hello Sanpaz, as I mentioned also on the talk-page of "Mohr's Circle": I think, there is some unresolved issue in that article in regards to the sign-convention... I think, in fig. 6, the angle "two theta" should count clockwise starting at A for "two theta=0". At A, the stress tensor/state is (sigma_x, tau_xy, sigma_y). And the traction vector, if you cut along theta=0, has components:

(sigma_n, tau_n)= (sigma_x, tau_xy)

i.e. "point A" in fig. 6.

Then, if you let theta be a very small angle, you can approximate

sin(2 theta)=2 theta, cos(2 theta) = 1.

If you use e.g. (sigma_x, tau_xy, sigma_y) = (1, 2, 4) for theta=0, so that (sigma_n_0, tau_n_0) = (1, 2), then for a small angle theta or 2 theta you get:

sigma_n = sigma_n_0 + 2 tau_xy theta > sigma_n_0 and tau_n = tau_n_0 - (sigma_x - sigma_y) theta > tau_n_0 > 0

This means, that the point A' = (sigma_n, tau_n) is a little bit to the right and a little bit to the top with respect to A=(sigma_n_0, tau_n_0).

In your drawing, however, people guess, that you would have to count "two theta" anti-clockwise starting from point B - which is incorrect, I guess...

One reason is, that point A (and not point B) matches theta=0. The other reason is: For a small theta, you should (in the example above) get a positive tau_n.

Cheers, Kassbohm (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your example, you suggested values of (1, 2, 4). But what is the orientation of those vectors in space? I suggest you draw the infinitesimal element around the point P under consideration and follow the sign convention as explain in the article or in books such as Beer and Johnston. sanpaz (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tensor components (1,2,4) are in regards to x- and y-axis... but I think it's easier, if we continue discussing on the article talk-page... Kassbohm (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohr's circle explanation 3

Hi Sanpaz,

This is regarding the recent discussion we had on the talk page of Mohr's Cirle. I thought the discussion was getting too lengthy on the talk page, and felt that we should continue it elsewhere, and I hope you don't mind it if we do it here on your page.

Please do not take this persistent argument in the wrong sense. I only genuinely intend to clear things up.

I respect your views and I convey my thanks for your prompt and sincere responses, but I still don't agree that an internally generated force in a member on account of an applied force should be explained as Newton's reaction - it is indeed a reaction, but in general terms, not a direct application of Newton's 3rd Law, primarily because both the 'action' and 'reaction' being talked about in this context act on the same body, i.e., the structural member. This defeats the core principle of Newton's 3rd law, which talks of action and reaction forces on two different bodies.

I feel an explanation for a simple tension problem can be given by drawing free body diagrams of sections of the structural member subjected to tensile loading. Consider the member shown in the figure. For the sake of simplicity, let's just split our bar into three sections, A, B and C as shown, such that the cutting planes are parallel to the cross section of the member. Let's start the argument from, say, section A. We have our applied load, P acting on it as shown, but we know that our member is in equilibrium, i.e., it is not accelerating. Thus must meant that the net force on it is zero, which means that another force of magnitude P acts on it in the direction of FrA marked in the diagram. Now, the only entity can apply this force is section B. Since B applies a force of magnitude P in the direction show, A must apply an equal and opposite force on B, according to Newton’s 3rd Law. This argument must start, in this manner from each end section of the structural member and proceed towards the centre where the net force on the central section is kept in equilibrium by the net sum of the forces acting on it. Since an infinite number of such sections may be considered, each with load P acting on it, we have the concept of internal force or stress (the normal stress at least).

If this is the case, how can one say that the internal forces (those corresponding to stress) developed in a member are a direct consequence of Newton’s 3rd Law? The 3rd Law comes into play when we look at what happens to the objects (or systems) that apply these forces, P on each side of the member. Yetanotherwriter (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to see your point. In your explanation of the Figure (I cannot see the jpg) you are correctly saying that "B applies a force of magnitude P in the direction show, A must apply an equal and opposite force on B, according to Newton’s 3rd Law. This argument must start, in this manner from each end section of the structural member and proceed towards...". But then you contradict that by saying "How can one say that the internal forces (those corresponding to stress) developed in a member are a direct consequence of Newton’s 3rd Law?". Yes you can. The "two objects" you are referring to are the two parts of the same object separated by the planes A, B, C.

I suggest that you read Continuum Mechanics by Reddy,Continuum Mechanics by Irgens and also Continuum Mechanics by Mase. I think I have not made a good explanation and those books will provide a better one. sanpaz (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've uploaded the image correctly now (I had made a mistake last time). Sanpaz, what I'm trying to imply is that, the force, FrA, for example, is not generated directly as an outcome of Newton's 3rd Law. It is not a reaction to the applied force P. For example, if section B hadn't been present, section A would accelerate towards the left, and in that case, would you say that Newton's 3rd Law doesn't apply? What I'm trying to say is that the spreading of the internal force throughout the material is as a consequence of Newton's 3rd Law, but not its generation. I really hope you get my point. Yetanotherwriter (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the transmission of internal forces throughout the body is a result of Newton's 3rd law (the conservation of linear momentum)

About the generation of the force FrA: It is not a reaction (reaction from Newton's 3rd law) to the load P on part A, but rather a reaction to the contact force generated by Part (B+C) on Part A. This is what the Cauchy Lemma demonstration shows (see the references I gave above. For example the book of Irgens). This lemma shows that from Euler's laws of motion (balance of linear momentum/Newton's 2nd Law) a general version of Newton's 3rd law for bodies can be derived. The changes in internal forces (stresses) are a 'reaction' to (result from the application of) the overall/total external forces applied on the body. They are not a 'reaction' in the sense that the internal forces are equal and opposite to the external forces applied on the body, but that they are a reaction (in the Newton 3rd law sense) on a part of the body (on one side of an imaginary plane) to the contact forces from the other part of the body (on the other side of an imaginary plane). sanpaz (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanpaz,

I have a request--I don't want to make any changes any more directly into the soil shear page and was hoping you will be able to kindly make one for me.

I noticed a incorrect wording of this line in this steady state section:

"This is that at the steady state condition the grains align in the direction of shear, whereas no such oriented structure occurs for the critical state. In this sense the steady state corresponds to the "residual" condition."

It is poorly worded. I request kindly that you replace it with the following:

This is that at the steady state condition the grains position themselves in the steady state structure, whereas no such structure occurs for the critical state. In the case of shearing to large strains for soils with elongated particles, this steady state structure is one where the grains are oriented (perhaps even aligned) in the direction of shear in which case the steady state corresponds to the "residual condition." Pjoseph 98 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph. Sorry I did not reply before. I have been away for the last month. I see that your request has been taken care of. Cheers. sanpaz (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanpaz, I see that you have done a lot of good work on the soil mechanics, and critical state pages. I am working on a rewrite of soil mechanics page. I am trying to reorganize while keeping all the information is already there. Some things I might move to other pages. You can see a link to an in-progress draft of the rewrite on my user discussion page. Is it appropriate, when I finish the edit, to simply delete much of the existing content of the old soil mechanics page and insert the contents of the new page? I am just starting to do major work on wikipedia, so I want to make sure this wholesale change would not offend anyone.Blkutter (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is excellent that you will work on those pages. To answer your question, I have found that it is better to do progressive changes, even though the end result of all the changes combined could have been done at once as one single change. The reason for applying progressive changes is that it allows other editors to follow the logic in your changes. It is easier to digest peaces of changes at a time than the whole thing at once. Another reason for incremental changes, is that it is easier for you as an editor to realize things that may work better or may not work at all. My suggestions is this: Device a strategy on how to achieve the final result that you want to see with your changes. For example, change the table of contents first (sections), then add the contents of each section later. In other words, write your full article in your user page, as you are doing right now. Then start to insert its content into the actual wikipedia article in little chunks. This way, other editors will see those new changes as they come and have a change to assimilate the result.

This is just my opinion. You also can simply delete and replace the whole article with your new article, but there is the risk of having too many edit discussions about many components of your changes at once. Again, it is easier to digest one change at a time than all at once.

Let me know what you think. sanpaz (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanpaz!

I see that you have made a few nice svg images for the article Stress (mechanics). What software have you used for making them, is there software that automatically can give you the shadows that you have in your pictures, or do you have to model it manually? It would be interesting to know what the market for this kind of software looks like. --Kri (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kri, I use inkscape, which is an open source software, to create svg files. The shadows are made with fill gradients. As far as I know, there is no shadow function, I just create the illusion of a shadow being reflected on the floor by using for example an oval placed under the object and filling it with a gradient of gray. sanpaz (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you can and if you haven’t already, you might see into Serif DrawPlus X4 or later editions, much less fiddly and quirky than inkscape, very easy control over nodes, many pre-encoded "quickshapes" (e.x. any polygon, arrows, "combs", waves, zig-zags etc.), many more features I can't list them all out here. (By no means am I promoting anything, just a suggestion). Thanks again for your contributions! ^_^ Maschen (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for adding this image. It was requested that an SVG file be created, so if it's ok I did so. Is it ok to use in place of the PNG? Thanks again. Maschen (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maschen. Sure, no problem. Good job! sanpaz (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, one nomenclature question: would you say that "Stress Analysis" is mainly concerned with static situations? Or does it cover stress in dynamic situations too (fluid dynamics, extrusion and metalforming, vibrations, etc.?) Is it just for engineering, or does it include stress analysis that is done in geology, biology (bone, trees, insect legs,...), etc.? I am wondering specifically about the Stress (mechanics)#Stress analysis and stress analysis. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From an engineering perspective, stress analysis on a "material" object includes any type of load (static or dynamic). For fluids is kind of tricky to call it stress analysis (I think) because if the fluid has the viscocity of water then it does not make sense to talk about stresses but only pressures (no shear or deviatoric stress). But remember that pressure (hydrostatic stress) is a component of stress (an also the deviatoric stress). So even though one does not talk about "stress analysis" on water bodies, one talks about pressure "analysis".

In geology one definitely talks about stress analysis. When it comes to biology, I have not much knowledge on the terminology. But I am almost certain that there is such things as a stress analysis on bones, etc.sanpaz (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

My name is Gabriel Fougeron and I am a student in a French to engeneering school : Ecole Centrale Paris. I am currently writing a report on continuum mechanics, and I think your figures very well explain what I want. Unfortunately, we do not use the same notations. Would it be possible for you to send me the source code that was used to create those figures ? (I reckon you used some derivative of Tex ... ) I would then be able to adapt then myself.

please answer me at gabriel (dot) fougeron (at) ecp (dot) fr since I do not know how I will be able to follow this discussion thread

Thank you very much

Gabriel Fougeron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.26.156.98 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabriel, I sent you an email, but I am writing here too (Your email address does not work).

You can download the figures directly from Wikipedia. The figures have extension "svg". You can edit them using the program inkscape (http://www.inkscape.org/en/download/). You can modify the figures in any way with that program.

You can modify the equations and text with the available fonts from inkscape. However, if you want to write the equation using TeX, you need to use an extension package for inkscape called Textext (http://pav.iki.fi/software/textext/index.html). That page explains how to use and install the extension.

I am glad you find the figures useful. If you have any suggestions to improve them please let me know.

sanpaz (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the quick response. I will definately do what you suggested, event if I am not proficient with Inkscape. Gabriel

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks for your drawings in continuum mechanics! Nicoguaro (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sanpaz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]