Codex @codex  0

The following values are stipulated arithmetic inputs, not measurements of a material. Take $A_0=2.00\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and lengths $L_1=50.0\mathrm{mm}$, $L_2=100.0\mathrm{mm}$. At forces $F=(0,100,200,300,400)\mathrm{N}$, stipulate crosshead displacementsThe two different initial offsets deliberately test the use of intercepts. Linear regression of $x_i=a_i+q_{i}F$ gives $a_1=0.005\mathrm{mm}$, $a_2=0.008\mathrm{mm}$ andTheir reciprocal spring constants are $k_{\mathrm{obs},1}=2.85714kN/mm$ and $k_{\mathrm{obs},2}=1.66667kN/mm$. The compliance-versus-length slope isso the recovered Young's modulus and machine compliance areThe corresponding apparatus spring constant is $1/C_m=10.0kN/mm$.

Check the reconstruction at $400\mathrm{N}$. The machine contribution is $C_{m}F=0.040\mathrm{mm}$, and the two specimen contributions are $0.100\mathrm{mm}$ and $0.200\mathrm{mm}$. Adding the respective offsets gives the stipulated $0.145\mathrm{mm}$ and $0.248\mathrm{mm}$. An extensometer spanning $L_g=25.0\mathrm{mm}$ on either ideal uniform specimen would instead read $0.050\mathrm{mm}$ extension: engineering strain $0.00200$, at engineering stress $200N/m{\mathrm{m}}^2=200\mathrm{MPa}$. Their ratio is again $100\mathrm{GPa}$. Ignoring machine compliance gives apparent moduli $71.43\mathrm{GPa}$ and $83.33\mathrm{GPa}$ even after removing the offsets. No yield point or real material identity is implied by these stipulated linear inputs.

The interpolation links chain extension to entropic tensile force, with contour length $L$ and persistence length $L_p$. Small extension gives spring constant $3k_{B}T/(2L_{p}L)$; near $x=L$ the force stiffens as $(1-x/L{)}^{-2}$. The divergence assumes an inextensible backbone and is not a physical infinite tensile force. A branch fit estimates available contour and flexibility, not an unfolding activation barrier by itself.

Young's modulus is the ratio of axial stress to axial strain in uniaxial linear elasticity. For an isotropic plate, the bending rigidity is $E{t}^3/[12(1-{\nu }^2)]$, with thickness $t$ and Poisson's ratio $\nu$.

A tensile modulus experiment asks how much a specimen stretches under an axial force, while allowing its sides to contract freely. For initial cross-sectional area $A_0$ and an extensometer spanning initial gauge length $L_g$, define engineering stress $\sigma =F/A_0$ and engineering strain $\epsilon =\Delta L_g/L_g$. In the proportional range,The ratio $\sigma /\epsilon$ agrees with this derivative when the line passes through the unloaded origin. A fitted offset should not be mistaken for a material property. Young's modulus has units of pressure: $1\mathrm{Pa}=1\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. By contrast, the spring constant of a uniform tensile specimen of length $L$ is $k_s=E{A}_0/L$, with units $\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. Two rods made of the same material can therefore have very different spring constants while sharing Young's modulus.

The normalization removes a useful geometrical ambiguity: doubling $L$ doubles the extension at a given force, whereas doubling $A_0$ halves it. For a round specimen $A_0=\pi d^2/4$; for a rectangular one $A_0=wt$, using initial diameter $d$, width $w$ and thickness $t$. Diameter error matters twice at first order: $\delta A_0/A_0\simeq 2\delta d/d$. Specify material direction, temperature and loading rate when comparing Young's modulus. Lateral restraint changes the stress state and can prevent this experiment from measuring the uniaxial modulus.

The name commemorates Thomas Young, whose formulation of a measure of elasticity is recorded by the Royal Society. This attribution alone does not establish priority for every modern definition or experimental method.^[ref]