I'm sorry, but I am a little confused by your question. What do you mean by subject? Engineering Dynamics or the concept of the Radius of Curvature? I'm more than happy to most more videos about either! :)
Careful, this criticism is about to get a little harsh. This video is an educational disaster. The calculation carried out here is formally correct, but the argumentation is very sloppy and clumsy. If the author of this video is not a supporter of non-standard analysis, but uses standard analysis here, then his argument is wrong: because differentials do not have to be small, very small, very very small, infinitely small (as he never tires of will be to mention). Modern analysis has now left this nonsense behind. Differentials are normal variables that can be used for normal calculations. Therefore dy/dx is actually a quotient. And they don't have to be small, but may have finite values. Only in the event that one wants to linearize a non-linear situation with the help of differential calculus do the differentials have to go through a limit value transition to zero. If you prepare the linearization and form differences and differentials, you can definitely do it in the finite range. And that's okay, and there's nothing to be ashamed of. And you don't have to constantly claim that the angle d-phi, the curve d-s etc. should be very, very small. It's also not true. The linearization takes place in the finite range and the limit crossing towards zero then takes place in a second step (which one usually only needs to think about, but usually does not have to carry out at all). The whole thing is very much indebted to Leibniz. Leibniz didn't know any better, but - measured by 17th-century mathematics - he was a genius. But the way he thinks and speaks, his way of arguing, has long been outdated. In the last 300 years, analysis has built up a consistently serious array of arguments around it. People still write dy/dx today, but not all the time, as if they didn't know any better. Today, for the sake of simplicity, one writes y' (that bit of Newton has to be there)! That would make the whole calculation far clearer. And speaking of clarity: the author's panel painting is an impertinence. It seems to me like when a elementary school student writes on the blackboard for the first time. Wherever there is space, something is added. The way a blackboard painting looks, so does the speaker's brain: chaotic. The author also writes sloppily. He writes the rho to look almost like the phi. And at the end of the calculation he falls for his own handwriting and speaks of phi, although he means rho. With a distinct and clear handwriting, that would not happen. So, dear recipients of this video: don't take it as an example. Only bad teachers do that. And there are already enough of those.
I like this derivation and its steps. It's a little easier to follow than most. Nice job.
Thanks! I really tried to make this easy to follow!
thank you sir. its rare UA-cam actually help academically now a days.
Finally.... I understood that... Very clear explanation
Your explanation is thorough and informative. Thank you.
Frank Lin no problem
Your video is very clear you are a genius
Attractive lecture sir i never seen such lecture on UA-cam love from Pakistan
excellent explanation
Hey dude!!
The explanation was very nice!
Love from India❤️
Thank you! I’m glad it helped!
Thank you very much Alex. Great explanation.
Thanks glad to help!
Great explanation!
+Aryan Chouhan thank you!
Great Explanation , Thank you so much .
Wow!!! Nice explaination
Thanks!
This is a subject which I can hardly find any data about anywhere. Any reason why?
Can you expand this subject in more videos?
I'm sorry, but I am a little confused by your question. What do you mean by subject? Engineering Dynamics or the concept of the Radius of Curvature? I'm more than happy to most more videos about either! :)
Curvature, radius of curvature, center of curvature etc. And being rigorous.
For sure! I'm a little busy at the moment, so I can't promise you any videos soon about this topic!
That's awesome. Thank you!
Thanks!
thank you very much for explanation.
No problem
Good explanation
Thanks!
thank you very much!!!!
thank you very much...
No problem
This is sooooo claer!
Careful, this criticism is about to get a little harsh.
This video is an educational disaster. The calculation carried out here is formally correct, but the argumentation is very sloppy and clumsy. If the author of this video is not a supporter of non-standard analysis, but uses standard analysis here, then his argument is wrong: because differentials do not have to be small, very small, very very small, infinitely small (as he never tires of will be to mention). Modern analysis has now left this nonsense behind. Differentials are normal variables that can be used for normal calculations. Therefore dy/dx is actually a quotient. And they don't have to be small, but may have finite values. Only in the event that one wants to linearize a non-linear situation with the help of differential calculus do the differentials have to go through a limit value transition to zero. If you prepare the linearization and form differences and differentials, you can definitely do it in the finite range. And that's okay, and there's nothing to be ashamed of. And you don't have to constantly claim that the angle d-phi, the curve d-s etc. should be very, very small. It's also not true. The linearization takes place in the finite range and the limit crossing towards zero then takes place in a second step (which one usually only needs to think about, but usually does not have to carry out at all).
The whole thing is very much indebted to Leibniz. Leibniz didn't know any better, but - measured by 17th-century mathematics - he was a genius. But the way he thinks and speaks, his way of arguing, has long been outdated. In the last 300 years, analysis has built up a consistently serious array of arguments around it.
People still write dy/dx today, but not all the time, as if they didn't know any better. Today, for the sake of simplicity, one writes y' (that bit of Newton has to be there)! That would make the whole calculation far clearer.
And speaking of clarity: the author's panel painting is an impertinence. It seems to me like when a elementary school student writes on the blackboard for the first time. Wherever there is space, something is added. The way a blackboard painting looks, so does the speaker's brain: chaotic.
The author also writes sloppily. He writes the rho to look almost like the phi. And at the end of the calculation he falls for his own handwriting and speaks of phi, although he means rho. With a distinct and clear handwriting, that would not happen.
So, dear recipients of this video: don't take it as an example. Only bad teachers do that. And there are already enough of those.