Recent content by Wily Willy

My way is really the same as mfb's. I was trying to be "less direct" in my advice and keep in line with the forum's rules. Anyway, I was just saying that determining a function for momentum with velocity as the only variable might be easier if you just started from the beginning with careful...

If you really want to understand this problem, I suggest using the ground (not the ramp) as the x-axis, draw a vector for the rain, and draw vector for the man running, make each vector a part of a right triangle and break them into components via trigonometry. This is the long way to solve the...

I would start by revisiting conservation of momentum and assigning each of the velocity vectors a sign depending on whether they are directed towards the ship or away from the ship. I think that will really clear things up.

You can get the velocity by going back and differentiating the total momentum of the rocket and the gas. I would suggest not using the notation C for the rate that the fuel is burnt. Just keep in mind that the total momentum is a constant, the velocity of the gas is a constant, and that the...

The first thing that catches my eye is that momentum should always have units of kg(m/s). You are missing that when you start here. It does not effect your solution because it would be canceled by division once you set the derivative equal to zero. This is right. (Never-minding the velocity.)...

I would say you are definitely correct to say no. Cathode ray tube televisions and ink jet printers balance gravity against EM all the time. What I am really curious about is how the moving charged particle is not creating its own magnetic field.

I came up with 1/e if you would like to take a look at my work. I'm somewhat confident I got there the right way. :smile:

Karol, could you post the correct answer?

Honestly, I never really learned this topic, and I know that most of my classmates did not. So I decided to do some reading and make an attempt at solving this problem in detail. Please take a look at my solution and let me know what you think.

I think it is important to note that when light reflects off of the surface of a material that is "less optically dense" it does not undergo a phase change. However, if it does reflect off the surface of a more optically dense material then it does undergo a phase change of 180 degrees. As the...

Anti-node is destructive I believe.

It does sound like a double slit problem. lodestar, I think it would help you to recall two things: why there is a node centered between the two forks and the wave equation.

Karol, I believe that the short cut that haruspex referred to had to do with the relationship between the little ball's angular velocity and the velocity of the center of mass. Applying this relationship early would allow you to skip a couple steps in your solution. Hope this helps. Also...