When calculating a force, why do I get different result when I try to calculate via torque vs via sum of forces at an axis?Determine coefficients of friction based on the torque required to rotate a part on a shaftWorking Out Shaft Torque in a Stirred Tank with a Cylindrical Cavern Formation (using a non Newtonian fluid)Chamber Wall Thickness for Liquid Fuel RocketMoment of Inertia of a Rectangular Cross SectionHow do I mechanically convert 200 steps into 360 discreet degrees?why do we consider the external pressure when calculating the boundary workLocations of max stresses in a circular beam?

European language movie, people enter a church but find they can't leave

Can $! cause race conditions when used in scripts running in parallel?

Why is there a difference between predicting on Validation set and Test set?

What is the difference between "Grippe" and "Männergrippe"?

Redacting URLs as an email-phishing preventative?

Are the players on the same team as the DM?

Why do proofs of Bernoulli's equation assume that forces on opposite ends point in different directions?

Very slow boot time and poor perfomance

Non-visual Computers - thoughts?

How many birds in the bush?

Ordering a list of integers

Papers on arXiv solving the same problem at the same time

To get so rich that you are not in need of anymore money

How is linear momentum conserved in case of a freely falling body?

“T” in subscript in formulas

Removal of て in Japanese novels

How much does Commander Data weigh?

How does encoder decoder network works?

Handling Disruptive Student on the Autism Spectrum

Why isn't temperature definable for a single, classical particle?

How do we tell which part of kinetic energy gives rise to temperature?

Rent contract say that pets are not allowed. Possible repercussions if bringing the pet anyway?

HJM in infinite dimensions

Is first Ubuntu user root?



When calculating a force, why do I get different result when I try to calculate via torque vs via sum of forces at an axis?


Determine coefficients of friction based on the torque required to rotate a part on a shaftWorking Out Shaft Torque in a Stirred Tank with a Cylindrical Cavern Formation (using a non Newtonian fluid)Chamber Wall Thickness for Liquid Fuel RocketMoment of Inertia of a Rectangular Cross SectionHow do I mechanically convert 200 steps into 360 discreet degrees?why do we consider the external pressure when calculating the boundary workLocations of max stresses in a circular beam?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2












$begingroup$


enter image description here



If I just do it by writing that the sum on y axis is 0 I get



$100+x=200$



$x=100$



If I try torque around the top:



$x*800=200*500$



$x=125$



So what am I doing wrong?










share|improve this question







New contributor



user1477107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$




















    2












    $begingroup$


    enter image description here



    If I just do it by writing that the sum on y axis is 0 I get



    $100+x=200$



    $x=100$



    If I try torque around the top:



    $x*800=200*500$



    $x=125$



    So what am I doing wrong?










    share|improve this question







    New contributor



    user1477107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$
















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      enter image description here



      If I just do it by writing that the sum on y axis is 0 I get



      $100+x=200$



      $x=100$



      If I try torque around the top:



      $x*800=200*500$



      $x=125$



      So what am I doing wrong?










      share|improve this question







      New contributor



      user1477107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$




      enter image description here



      If I just do it by writing that the sum on y axis is 0 I get



      $100+x=200$



      $x=100$



      If I try torque around the top:



      $x*800=200*500$



      $x=125$



      So what am I doing wrong?







      mechanical-engineering mechanical solid-mechanics






      share|improve this question







      New contributor



      user1477107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      share|improve this question







      New contributor



      user1477107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor



      user1477107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      asked 9 hours ago









      user1477107user1477107

      111 bronze badge




      111 bronze badge




      New contributor



      user1477107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




      New contributor




      user1477107 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3













          $begingroup$

          Essentially, the problem is poorly conditioned. As drawn, it cannot be in static equilibrium, which is why the equations of equilibrium are returning inconsistent solutions. We can confirm this by summing the moments about the point where force "X" is applied. Let's take counter-clockwise moments as positive.



          $$Sigma M = (-200*300) + (100*800) = 20,000 neq 0 $$



          The possibilities are:



          1. One of the forces you have drawn is incorrect. For example, if the 100N load were also considered an unknown, we could solve for both reactions and ensure static equilibrium.

          2. The forces may be drawn correctly but there are additional reactions (namely, moment reactions) that have not yet been considered. If a moment reaction also existed at the point where force "X" is applied, we could use two equations of equilibrium and solve for both "X" and the moment, again ensuring static equilibrium.





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$










          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Or it's a multi-part question, and the last part is "is the beam at equilibrium in rotation?"
            $endgroup$
            – TimWescott
            7 hours ago


















          1













          $begingroup$

          Let's accept the 100N as the top force or reaction and go from there.



          in order to maintain equilibrium in this beam there are set of prescribed positions and forces, or pairs of (Y, F)that will work. Any other position with wrong conjugate force will break the balance.



          The curve containing all the conjugate pairs of (Y,F) has this equation which is just a statement of $ Sigma M_(Y_0) =0$



          $$ Y*F-100N*800=0 \ F=frac80000Y $$



          This is of the family of Y=1/X curves which appears in many physical concepts.



          So if we plug 300 for y in this equation we get $F=80000/300=266.6N$



          Which is obviously not what you have in your diagram.



          Just by inspection we should be able to tell a force of 200N would work only at Y=400 and would not work at any other position.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$






















            1













            $begingroup$

            The answer is you have more variables than the equations, look at the general form of the problem:
            enter image description here



            We have in total five unknowns here and two equations of equilibrium:



            $$y-z-x=0$$
            $$-z(d+e)+yd=0$$



            The degree of freedom is equal to the difference between the number of variables and the number of equations here the degree of freedom is equal to three, however in your figure you assumed four known values, so at least one of the values in your problem is definitely incorrect.



            If the number of equations are more than the number of variables you don't have any freedom and the system of equations are not solvable.



            The above answers are correct, but I want to add something more.
            If you treat the structure as a point mass then the force equilibrium should give you the right answer, but the structure here has a finite dimensions.
            According to the second law of Newton (true for rigid bodies):



            $$sum_iF_i=Ma_G$$



            The sum of all external forces on a rigid body is equal to the mass of the body times the acceleration of its centroid.



            The static equilibrium implies that the right hand side should be zero. However because of the finite dimensions of the body, not all the forces going through the centre of the mass so you have net non-zero torque around the instantaneous centre of rotation, so the body can rotates but doesn't translate.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$

















              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "595"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );






              user1477107 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29817%2fwhen-calculating-a-force-why-do-i-get-different-result-when-i-try-to-calculate%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              3













              $begingroup$

              Essentially, the problem is poorly conditioned. As drawn, it cannot be in static equilibrium, which is why the equations of equilibrium are returning inconsistent solutions. We can confirm this by summing the moments about the point where force "X" is applied. Let's take counter-clockwise moments as positive.



              $$Sigma M = (-200*300) + (100*800) = 20,000 neq 0 $$



              The possibilities are:



              1. One of the forces you have drawn is incorrect. For example, if the 100N load were also considered an unknown, we could solve for both reactions and ensure static equilibrium.

              2. The forces may be drawn correctly but there are additional reactions (namely, moment reactions) that have not yet been considered. If a moment reaction also existed at the point where force "X" is applied, we could use two equations of equilibrium and solve for both "X" and the moment, again ensuring static equilibrium.





              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$










              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Or it's a multi-part question, and the last part is "is the beam at equilibrium in rotation?"
                $endgroup$
                – TimWescott
                7 hours ago















              3













              $begingroup$

              Essentially, the problem is poorly conditioned. As drawn, it cannot be in static equilibrium, which is why the equations of equilibrium are returning inconsistent solutions. We can confirm this by summing the moments about the point where force "X" is applied. Let's take counter-clockwise moments as positive.



              $$Sigma M = (-200*300) + (100*800) = 20,000 neq 0 $$



              The possibilities are:



              1. One of the forces you have drawn is incorrect. For example, if the 100N load were also considered an unknown, we could solve for both reactions and ensure static equilibrium.

              2. The forces may be drawn correctly but there are additional reactions (namely, moment reactions) that have not yet been considered. If a moment reaction also existed at the point where force "X" is applied, we could use two equations of equilibrium and solve for both "X" and the moment, again ensuring static equilibrium.





              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$










              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Or it's a multi-part question, and the last part is "is the beam at equilibrium in rotation?"
                $endgroup$
                – TimWescott
                7 hours ago













              3














              3










              3







              $begingroup$

              Essentially, the problem is poorly conditioned. As drawn, it cannot be in static equilibrium, which is why the equations of equilibrium are returning inconsistent solutions. We can confirm this by summing the moments about the point where force "X" is applied. Let's take counter-clockwise moments as positive.



              $$Sigma M = (-200*300) + (100*800) = 20,000 neq 0 $$



              The possibilities are:



              1. One of the forces you have drawn is incorrect. For example, if the 100N load were also considered an unknown, we could solve for both reactions and ensure static equilibrium.

              2. The forces may be drawn correctly but there are additional reactions (namely, moment reactions) that have not yet been considered. If a moment reaction also existed at the point where force "X" is applied, we could use two equations of equilibrium and solve for both "X" and the moment, again ensuring static equilibrium.





              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Essentially, the problem is poorly conditioned. As drawn, it cannot be in static equilibrium, which is why the equations of equilibrium are returning inconsistent solutions. We can confirm this by summing the moments about the point where force "X" is applied. Let's take counter-clockwise moments as positive.



              $$Sigma M = (-200*300) + (100*800) = 20,000 neq 0 $$



              The possibilities are:



              1. One of the forces you have drawn is incorrect. For example, if the 100N load were also considered an unknown, we could solve for both reactions and ensure static equilibrium.

              2. The forces may be drawn correctly but there are additional reactions (namely, moment reactions) that have not yet been considered. If a moment reaction also existed at the point where force "X" is applied, we could use two equations of equilibrium and solve for both "X" and the moment, again ensuring static equilibrium.






              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered 8 hours ago









              CableStayCableStay

              1,8771 gold badge9 silver badges26 bronze badges




              1,8771 gold badge9 silver badges26 bronze badges










              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Or it's a multi-part question, and the last part is "is the beam at equilibrium in rotation?"
                $endgroup$
                – TimWescott
                7 hours ago












              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Or it's a multi-part question, and the last part is "is the beam at equilibrium in rotation?"
                $endgroup$
                – TimWescott
                7 hours ago







              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Or it's a multi-part question, and the last part is "is the beam at equilibrium in rotation?"
              $endgroup$
              – TimWescott
              7 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Or it's a multi-part question, and the last part is "is the beam at equilibrium in rotation?"
              $endgroup$
              – TimWescott
              7 hours ago













              1













              $begingroup$

              Let's accept the 100N as the top force or reaction and go from there.



              in order to maintain equilibrium in this beam there are set of prescribed positions and forces, or pairs of (Y, F)that will work. Any other position with wrong conjugate force will break the balance.



              The curve containing all the conjugate pairs of (Y,F) has this equation which is just a statement of $ Sigma M_(Y_0) =0$



              $$ Y*F-100N*800=0 \ F=frac80000Y $$



              This is of the family of Y=1/X curves which appears in many physical concepts.



              So if we plug 300 for y in this equation we get $F=80000/300=266.6N$



              Which is obviously not what you have in your diagram.



              Just by inspection we should be able to tell a force of 200N would work only at Y=400 and would not work at any other position.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



















                1













                $begingroup$

                Let's accept the 100N as the top force or reaction and go from there.



                in order to maintain equilibrium in this beam there are set of prescribed positions and forces, or pairs of (Y, F)that will work. Any other position with wrong conjugate force will break the balance.



                The curve containing all the conjugate pairs of (Y,F) has this equation which is just a statement of $ Sigma M_(Y_0) =0$



                $$ Y*F-100N*800=0 \ F=frac80000Y $$



                This is of the family of Y=1/X curves which appears in many physical concepts.



                So if we plug 300 for y in this equation we get $F=80000/300=266.6N$



                Which is obviously not what you have in your diagram.



                Just by inspection we should be able to tell a force of 200N would work only at Y=400 and would not work at any other position.






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$

















                  1














                  1










                  1







                  $begingroup$

                  Let's accept the 100N as the top force or reaction and go from there.



                  in order to maintain equilibrium in this beam there are set of prescribed positions and forces, or pairs of (Y, F)that will work. Any other position with wrong conjugate force will break the balance.



                  The curve containing all the conjugate pairs of (Y,F) has this equation which is just a statement of $ Sigma M_(Y_0) =0$



                  $$ Y*F-100N*800=0 \ F=frac80000Y $$



                  This is of the family of Y=1/X curves which appears in many physical concepts.



                  So if we plug 300 for y in this equation we get $F=80000/300=266.6N$



                  Which is obviously not what you have in your diagram.



                  Just by inspection we should be able to tell a force of 200N would work only at Y=400 and would not work at any other position.






                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Let's accept the 100N as the top force or reaction and go from there.



                  in order to maintain equilibrium in this beam there are set of prescribed positions and forces, or pairs of (Y, F)that will work. Any other position with wrong conjugate force will break the balance.



                  The curve containing all the conjugate pairs of (Y,F) has this equation which is just a statement of $ Sigma M_(Y_0) =0$



                  $$ Y*F-100N*800=0 \ F=frac80000Y $$



                  This is of the family of Y=1/X curves which appears in many physical concepts.



                  So if we plug 300 for y in this equation we get $F=80000/300=266.6N$



                  Which is obviously not what you have in your diagram.



                  Just by inspection we should be able to tell a force of 200N would work only at Y=400 and would not work at any other position.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 5 hours ago

























                  answered 5 hours ago









                  kamrankamran

                  6,4032 gold badges5 silver badges15 bronze badges




                  6,4032 gold badges5 silver badges15 bronze badges
























                      1













                      $begingroup$

                      The answer is you have more variables than the equations, look at the general form of the problem:
                      enter image description here



                      We have in total five unknowns here and two equations of equilibrium:



                      $$y-z-x=0$$
                      $$-z(d+e)+yd=0$$



                      The degree of freedom is equal to the difference between the number of variables and the number of equations here the degree of freedom is equal to three, however in your figure you assumed four known values, so at least one of the values in your problem is definitely incorrect.



                      If the number of equations are more than the number of variables you don't have any freedom and the system of equations are not solvable.



                      The above answers are correct, but I want to add something more.
                      If you treat the structure as a point mass then the force equilibrium should give you the right answer, but the structure here has a finite dimensions.
                      According to the second law of Newton (true for rigid bodies):



                      $$sum_iF_i=Ma_G$$



                      The sum of all external forces on a rigid body is equal to the mass of the body times the acceleration of its centroid.



                      The static equilibrium implies that the right hand side should be zero. However because of the finite dimensions of the body, not all the forces going through the centre of the mass so you have net non-zero torque around the instantaneous centre of rotation, so the body can rotates but doesn't translate.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



















                        1













                        $begingroup$

                        The answer is you have more variables than the equations, look at the general form of the problem:
                        enter image description here



                        We have in total five unknowns here and two equations of equilibrium:



                        $$y-z-x=0$$
                        $$-z(d+e)+yd=0$$



                        The degree of freedom is equal to the difference between the number of variables and the number of equations here the degree of freedom is equal to three, however in your figure you assumed four known values, so at least one of the values in your problem is definitely incorrect.



                        If the number of equations are more than the number of variables you don't have any freedom and the system of equations are not solvable.



                        The above answers are correct, but I want to add something more.
                        If you treat the structure as a point mass then the force equilibrium should give you the right answer, but the structure here has a finite dimensions.
                        According to the second law of Newton (true for rigid bodies):



                        $$sum_iF_i=Ma_G$$



                        The sum of all external forces on a rigid body is equal to the mass of the body times the acceleration of its centroid.



                        The static equilibrium implies that the right hand side should be zero. However because of the finite dimensions of the body, not all the forces going through the centre of the mass so you have net non-zero torque around the instantaneous centre of rotation, so the body can rotates but doesn't translate.






                        share|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$

















                          1














                          1










                          1







                          $begingroup$

                          The answer is you have more variables than the equations, look at the general form of the problem:
                          enter image description here



                          We have in total five unknowns here and two equations of equilibrium:



                          $$y-z-x=0$$
                          $$-z(d+e)+yd=0$$



                          The degree of freedom is equal to the difference between the number of variables and the number of equations here the degree of freedom is equal to three, however in your figure you assumed four known values, so at least one of the values in your problem is definitely incorrect.



                          If the number of equations are more than the number of variables you don't have any freedom and the system of equations are not solvable.



                          The above answers are correct, but I want to add something more.
                          If you treat the structure as a point mass then the force equilibrium should give you the right answer, but the structure here has a finite dimensions.
                          According to the second law of Newton (true for rigid bodies):



                          $$sum_iF_i=Ma_G$$



                          The sum of all external forces on a rigid body is equal to the mass of the body times the acceleration of its centroid.



                          The static equilibrium implies that the right hand side should be zero. However because of the finite dimensions of the body, not all the forces going through the centre of the mass so you have net non-zero torque around the instantaneous centre of rotation, so the body can rotates but doesn't translate.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          The answer is you have more variables than the equations, look at the general form of the problem:
                          enter image description here



                          We have in total five unknowns here and two equations of equilibrium:



                          $$y-z-x=0$$
                          $$-z(d+e)+yd=0$$



                          The degree of freedom is equal to the difference between the number of variables and the number of equations here the degree of freedom is equal to three, however in your figure you assumed four known values, so at least one of the values in your problem is definitely incorrect.



                          If the number of equations are more than the number of variables you don't have any freedom and the system of equations are not solvable.



                          The above answers are correct, but I want to add something more.
                          If you treat the structure as a point mass then the force equilibrium should give you the right answer, but the structure here has a finite dimensions.
                          According to the second law of Newton (true for rigid bodies):



                          $$sum_iF_i=Ma_G$$



                          The sum of all external forces on a rigid body is equal to the mass of the body times the acceleration of its centroid.



                          The static equilibrium implies that the right hand side should be zero. However because of the finite dimensions of the body, not all the forces going through the centre of the mass so you have net non-zero torque around the instantaneous centre of rotation, so the body can rotates but doesn't translate.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered 2 hours ago









                          Sam FarjamiradSam Farjamirad

                          1,1531 gold badge4 silver badges23 bronze badges




                          1,1531 gold badge4 silver badges23 bronze badges























                              user1477107 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                              draft saved

                              draft discarded


















                              user1477107 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              user1477107 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                              user1477107 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Engineering Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f29817%2fwhen-calculating-a-force-why-do-i-get-different-result-when-i-try-to-calculate%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                              Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                              François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480