Talk:Mooney–Rivlin solid

shouldnt there be an exponent in the formula? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.95.94.232 (talk • contribs) .

Where should there be an exponent? The main formula looks okay to me. deeptrivia (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see. What was already there, and what you wrote are two equally valid ways of defining the invariants. Something like (New I2) = (Old I2)*(Old I3)^2, and (New I3) = (Old I3)^2. Both old and new I's fine, since both are invariants, but subsequent discussion will have to change accordingly. You must check if everything else in the article is still correct with the new definition. deeptrivia (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of term 'Finger tensor' is inconsistent with the definition on the page linked by Finger tensor -- they're inverses. I don't know enough to correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.30.112 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inconsistency with the PATRAN formula for the uniaxial tension[edit]

In the PATRAN the sigma tension is divided by lambda cubic. In this page it is divided by lambda square.