well, we seem to have an impossible situation here. and in fact we do. if you look at the change in KE of B, it is bigger than the whole of A's KE coming in. this is impossible. these numbers do not correspond to a possible physical situation.
hmm, that doesn't look right. one thing is my fault, you need to change your units from mT to microT.
but the graph itself looks wrong too. it should be symmetric and it should have a minimum at the center. make sure you are adding the fields from the two wires together.
get 10,000 straws and 100m of tape and then start building and dropping. use your intuition to get started, but test, test some more, and then do some more tests; you get the idea :smile:.
yes, you have the idea, now you just need to calculate the field at a few more points and get the shape of the graph. you should try to take advantage of the symmetry of the situation.
notice the field in the middle is 45 microtesla, so you need to adjust your scale.
oops, i just noticed i...
no, all of our action will take place between the wires. you need to make the position of wire 1 = 0cm, and the position of wire 2 = 6cm, and then fill in the rest. the field we are given is for the point located 2cm from wire one, so that is where we plot the value 8.
ok, that should work, though you may need to consider negative B values. Now, we need to partition our axes and give them some units. we can use the one data point that we know already, (2 , 8x10^-6), to help us determine the scale we should use for each axis. the x-axis is easy, just put a...
if you are thinking about the efficiency of the machine, you don't really want to think in terms of initial vs final energy, but rather energy in and energy out. what do you have to put into the thing, this is basically the cost of lifting the bricks, vs the desired output, which is the KE of...
i agree with borek, getting them to do the algebra sort of kills two birds with one stone. and it is usually the more efficient way to go (but not always).
cheers
oops, now that i read the problem more carefully, i see that the MA (and so VR also) is 1/6. i read it as saying the load was 5m from the fulcrum, but it is 5m from the effort, so 6m from the fulcrum. ok, then the load and effort force make sense.
now, as for the work, that's easy, energy is...
you have interpreted correctly :smile: . though i feel the need to say that the distances traveled will not be 1m and 5m, but due to similar triangles, the ratio will be 1/5, and that is all we care about.
cheers
so, for velocity, we only need to worry about how far each end of the lever moves when we perform our task, and how long it takes to move that distance. we can ignore all the real physics stuff like force and energy for now. so picture it in your head, the long end of the lever is pulled down...
why do you think it should be 1/6? you need to just think about the definition of velocity. velocity is just how far the thing goes divided by how long it took to get there (well, that is average velocity, but that's all we need here). you can use trig to solve the problem, but that is the...
hi,
i have never seen a series like that, very interesting. i can't think of any way to call that a convergent series with that rouge term in there, not even at the center. your analysis of the radius of convergence is correct for the remaining terms.
cheers
if the cylinder is rolling without slipping, then the angular acceleration is equal to the linear acceleration divided by the radius of the cylinder.
cheers
hi,
so, we have two waves moving from point A to point B, so they go the same distance, lets call that d. but, they are going at different speeds, so they take different times. we don't know those times, but we know the difference between them, so would could say that t_{fast}=t_{slow}-120...