Let us take a scenario.
Initially in a completely isolated close container. Water is kept (A significant amount) at 1 Atm, 273 K. Constant temperature, constant pressure, constant number of moles. And well the volume of the container is fixed.
Some amount of water evaporates and there is an...
Thank you for all your help. I have understood it, it was a misconception in my mind. (litup, berkeman, Charles Link ch995)
1) The temperature vs resistance graph is non linear so the previously derived resistance at 2500K.
2) The numbers could be a off for resistivity, I guess.
I have a typo...
Have you seen the video completely? (No off.) I think that is why there is a communication gap.
The resistance reported by the multi-meter is 39.2 ohms which is approximated to 40 ohms. Using that data. I don't have to calculate A/l. But that as per berkeman is the resistance at room...
I did not understand most part of it. No, it's not because I have not learned AC. (Basics)
If you have read the previous response. I including the factor of temperature change and since someone mentioned I even included the change of length of the wire due to heating. With that, the error...
The physical dimensions will remain the same before and after. I know its not true, but then it should approximately come out to be true. Even if we include all that the difference will stand out to be ~400 Ohms. (Which is still too big of an error)
(I multiplied both sides by A/l where A is...
Yes, I believe that's the reason. But the data is going quite against it. I think I messed it up somwhere.
But if I take the data given below for resistivity (4.5 * 10^-4 K^-1) and temperature inside a light bulb as (3500 K, which is higher than its melting point) And assuming the room...
Please view the youtube video below:
This is not a homework problem.
The reason seems rather weird. Though the video seems incomplete, I would like to know the reason why 39.2 Ohms showed up. It seems rather weird. I know that resistance does not depend on the Voltage or the current if I am...
Yes, very true. I forgot about it. So I will reframe my first question.
Does rolling friction depend on the surface area? In other words, the size of the object placed? If I had two spheres (With radii r1 and r2. r1>r2) of the same mass. Without static and kinetic friction coming into play...
Does rolling friction depend on the surface area? In other words, the size of the object placed? If I had a block and sphere of the same mass. Without static and kinetic friction coming into play. Which would experience greater rolling friction if they were on the same incline and of the same...
The sphere is already moving counter clockwise. The frictional force will go against this rolling motion as the bottom of the sphere tends to move with a velocity v unlike perfect rolling. Friction will oppose the change and hence create a torque in the clockwise direction. Hence the torque...