Recent content by Zayan

I also said "etc", implying there are more measurements that I didn't type.

] Let's say that I had some data with 2 significant figures, and 1 decimal place, eg, 9.2,9.6, etc. Now I calculate the mean value and it comes out to be 9.3. Now since it is the same significant figures, I don't round off. But let's say the error comes out as 0.12. This has 2 significant...

Area is L*B. A=L*B Take natural log on both sides, lnA= lnL+lnB Take differential on both sides, (1/A)dA= (1/L)dL + (1/B)dB. Thus giving, ∆A/A=∆L/L+ ∆B/B

Also, I'm not sure whether we should be assuming the mean value to be the arithmetic mean of the upper and lower limits. So rounding off to the original data seems fair.

Then doesn't it add MORE uncertainty than there is? According to that logic shouldn't it be 19.4±1.48 if we're being SUPER precise.

That's true. But I had studied that we round off to the same no. of significant figures as the data given. I had also studied that we keep decimal places same as the original data. Idk I'm confused lol

I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48...

check this out

Yes I meant to say that even though the fields are not uniform, we can equate the "flux" of that region as the decrease in flux and the increase of cos/theta sort of cancel each other out

Yes I understand that I even said it. My point is that even though the field on the plane area is not uniform, we can equate it with the flux passing through the cylindrical arc without doing the calculation? I suppose that even though the field is higher on the actual plane but the angle and...

The same number of lines that would have crossed the part of curved surface of the outer cylinder

Are you talking about the unitary method? Like dividing total flux in 2π and multiplying by 2*15° = 30°? I don't know I am kinda sceptical about that method. Is that valid? I mean the field is not constant for BC so can I still use that?

Okay makes sense. I did not know what edge effects they're referring to. So now my doubt is almost cleared I'll revise the earthing concept. So now for flux I'll calculate it through BC then multiply by two. So I take a strip of l length dx width and find the flux and integrate from π/4 to π/3.

Let me clear this up. What I'm asking is that how do you know that the entire outer charge will be neutralized by grounding, what's the proof for that? Earth makes the potential zero but that doesn't imply the whole charge will be neutralized does it? Also, note that the derivation for the...

I take a cylindrical surface as it is symmetric and calculate the field inside the region with the dielectric and it comes out as Q/2πrle⁰k