Talk:Mohr's circle

Please place new comments at the bottom of the page, and sign comments with --~, which will add your user name (or IP address) and the date, or -- , which will just add the date.

Comments 2010–2012
Very helpful and easy to understand. Good job really. I found the article rather interesting and the presentation clean and straightforward. Good work! Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful. Text and illustrations are easy to understand. Miguelveraleon 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am studying mechanics for my masters in biomedical engineering, and I had this subject in a different way , and this is by far the most simple and attractive way to comprehend Mohr's circle I ever experienced. Thank you

Thanks for posting this! I've struggled with my prof's explanation for 10 years and never quite understood it. This makes more sense. Nick

Thank you very much for this article. It was very helpful. Amin

this is absolutely nice and the practice way to illustrate, we encourage you to explain this way in future too --- Rajeev

This article provides a very easy and lucid way to understand a complex article of mechanics. It also provides insight into the real happening. I liked the article very much and would love to recommend everyone to read it.--- Swastik.

Awesome! -- Iskandar

Seriously superb article. I never thought i would understand Mohr's circle until after i read this one. Please do write more. --- Sri Kumar.

Everything makes more sense now! -- Anna

Absolutely fantastic. Thanks!-Dana

I liked it, thank you. – Davey J.

Thanks a lot, this is a brilliant article. You did a much better job than a geotechnical professor at a reputed US university. October, 2011 - Dk.

IT WAS FREAKING AWESOME! I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BIOMECHANICS A WHOLE WEEK UNSUCCESSFULLY BUT THIS SIMPLE STUFF YOU WROTE HERE REALLY SAVED ME ANOTHER WEEK! THANKS A LOT!! GOD BLESS YOU! - Peter G

This is the first guide ive seen that actually makes sence and with colourfull diagrams which are a great help!

Very handy, and well explained. It was easy to understand! Thanks a lot. --Mathiflip 09:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Extremely well done! Please do make more articles. It was insightful and clear! - Andrew

This article is more simple and straight forward than my textbook ever was. Please keep writing them!

Very helpful..thx..-Alia--113.210.224.148 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely fantastic!! Very straight forward and easy to understand! Thanks a lot! I appreciate your efforts on this! Keep it up please!! -Diao 09/24/2012

Very helpfull thank you!

I liked this more than the animated graphics I found from official universities. Thank you Ethan.

Comments 2013-
THANKS A LOT........

Very good - but i dont understand why its an angle of 2 theta? - steve

It's been a long time since I've done this stuff and the article was really clear and a great help in reminding what's going on. Thanks Tim Feb 2013

Thank you for writing this article. The pictures of the square section of material really help me visualize this concept. Keep this up. - Mike 03/11/13

veeeeery nice, thank you, 14 04 2013

Why is the square in the example rotated counterclockwise, while before it was said that it should be rotated clockwise by theta?

If the coordinate system(instead of the square itself) is rotated, it would be better to note that.

A very good and clear introduction to Mohr's circle but I still don't understand the 2 theta. 2013-11-03

I like the simplicity, the color coding, the explanation of convention and the use of examples. Great article, helped a lot! 22:17, 18 January 2015‎

It's very useful ! I found it easy to understand and it helps me a lot. Charlie 17/10/16

Hey thank you for the presentation. But I still quite don't understand how this concept could be applied in other areas. For instance, it is also applied in soil mechanics. What is the context? How does this Mohr's circle even work... how was it invented, i mean the deduction process?

Interesting topic indeed. Two things cought my attention: 1. If $$ R^2=13^2+51^2 $$, then R isn't 53.

2. As the tg value of angles isn't linearly proportional, maybe it would be more fortunate to say 2tg(sg.) instead of tg(2sg.). 38? Gaál Sándor (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)