coffeemanja
- 37
- 1
SammyS said:Well, it looks like a typo to me in the statement of the problem, as was the l=2 rather than l/2 .
SammyS said:Well, it looks like a typo to me in the statement of the problem, as was the l=2 rather than l/2 .
in c i get 0.395sstatii said:On c.) could the time be 2,53s (also got t= -1,26), used abc formula with α=10 and ω=2? Used the inertia formula that StavangerFinest did: I = (ML^2)/3.
you are using the wrong value of l, you have to put in the total width of the door in the equation, it doesn't matter where she pushes the door, it only matters when calculating the torque.coffeemanja said:Sorry, have been busy. I still have 40 in a . Alpha =( ΣF*L/2)/ (1/3*M*(L/2)^2) is my formula. Since it is a uniform rod with an axis through the end and the push is in the middle... I saw answer 10 somewhere... So now I'm puzzled
Yeah, got that already. Thanks anyway!Haveagoodday said:in c i get 0.395s
you are using the wrong value of l, you have to put in the total width of the door in the equation, it doesn't matter where she pushes the door, it only matters when calculating the torque.
It's about double that. Please post your working.Haveagoodday said:in c i get 0.395s
yeah, i recalculated and got 0.785s.haruspex said:It's about double that. Please post your working.
Excellent.Haveagoodday said:yeah, i recalculated and got 0.785s.
Can I post mine?haruspex said:It's about double that. Please post your working.
you have to use this equation t= θf-θi/wf-wicoffeemanja said:Can I post mine?
Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2
90=0+2t+0.5*10t...and the result is far of the one you say is correct...
What is the are value you putting for alpha here? What units do you have for omega?coffeemanja said:Can I post mine?
Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2
90=0+2t+0.5*10t...and the result is far of the one you say is correct...
wf-wi? Did you mean that?Haveagoodday said:you have to use this equation t= θf-θi/wf-wi
youHaveagoodday said:you have to use this equation t= θf-θi/wf-wi
yesharuspex said:wf-wi? Did you mean that?
That one was closest to theta. 90 degrees.haruspex said:What is the are you putting for alpha here? What units do you have for omega?
I've never seen that equation, and if you were to apply it you would get infinity. w does not change after the force on the door ceases.Haveagoodday said:you
yes
You did not answer either question. What number are you plugging in for alpha, and what units is your number for omega expressed in?coffeemanja said:That one was closest to theta. 90 degrees.
That is the formula for rotational motion...if alpha is a constant
Alpha is 10 rad/s...agh...I see now! Let me redo here...haruspex said:You did not answer either question. What number are you plugging in for alpha, and what units is your number for omega expressed in?
but iharuspex said:I've never seen that equation, and if you were to apply it you would get infinity. w does not change after the force on the door ceases.
dont forget that you have to use radians instead of degrees. But still it is apparently wrong to use that equation.coffeemanja said:That one was closest to theta. 90 degrees.
That is the formula for rotational motion...if alpha is a constant
Yes?Haveagoodday said:but i
well it is kind of like this equation v= dx/dt, and if you rearrange it you get t=dx/dv, and same goes for rotational motion equation w=dθ/dt, at least i think so.haruspex said:I've never seen that equation, and if you were to apply it you would get infinity. w does not change after the force on the door ceases.
No, you get dt=dx/v. It is certainly not the case that t=dx/dv.Haveagoodday said:well it is kind of like this equation v= dx/dt, and if you rearrange it you get t=dx/dv.
Good, if a little inaccurate. (But why does everyone insist on decimals? What's wrong with ##\pi/4##?coffeemanja said:I got 0.795 s
Wait... It's pi/2. I do not know, may be because we are used to use SI units..haruspex said:Good, if a little inaccurate. (But why does everyone insist on decimals? What's wrong with ##\pi/4##?
did you use this equation Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2 ?coffeemanja said:Wait... It's pi/2. I do not know, may be because we are used to use SI units..
Yes!Haveagoodday said:did you use this equation Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2 ?
what are the values you put in?coffeemanja said:Yes!
I assume you are just looking for a yes/no answer. There's a risk your question might be interpreted as a request for a solution to be posted.Haveagoodday said:Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
I think somebody posted an answer for part (e).Haveagoodday said:Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
Here's a starting point:Haveagoodday said:Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
As I said, 0.795 is rather inaccurate.jimjames said:How did you get C) 0.795 s or pi/4
It is, but where we study they insist on decimal numbers. It is inaccurate, but the main reason why they do it is so we can use our knowledge about significant digits. You'd be surprised over how many people make silly mistakes on significant digits.haruspex said:As I said, 0.795 is rather inaccurate.
No, it's more inaccurate than it should be for a three digit decimal. Calculate pi/4.StavangerFinest said:It is, but where we study they insist on decimal numbers. It is inaccurate, but the main reason why they do it is so we can use our knowledge about significant digits. You'd be surprised over how many people make silly mistakes on significant digits.
Oh yeah... 0,785s...Didn't notice that they had nine instead...Sorry, my badharuspex said:No, it's more inaccurate than it should be for a three digit decimal. Calculate pi/4.
The thread is two years old. I doubt StavangerFinest is still interested.Bambisu said:Read the book from page 308 to 314, you will understand the physics not just for one question but for all related questions.