.Calculating 'k' and 'w' in Wave Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikefitz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wave
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the calculation of wave parameters 'k' and 'w' in a wave problem, specifically addressing the confusion around the use of -1 powers for time (s) and distance (m). The -1 power indicates the dimensional analysis related to the units, not an addition of values. It is emphasized that keeping units throughout calculations can help avoid mistakes, even if it may seem unusual. The conversation also touches on the mathematical principles of manipulating units, such as the rule of adding powers when multiplying. Understanding the notation and dimensional aspects is crucial for clarity in wave mechanics.
mikefitz
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8093/untitledrp9.png

i understand how the 'k' and 'w' values were calculated in the above problem. what i do not understand is why 134 s and 20.9m are being take to the -1 power. is the 20.9m being added because the problem states the wave travels in the -x direction? Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
mikefitz said:
i understand how the 'k' and 'w' values were calculated in the above problem. what i do not understand is why 134 s and 20.9m are being take to the -1 power. is the 20.9m being added because the problem states the wave travels in the -x direction? Thanks

They are not. The -1 applies only to the units s and m respectively.
 
That -1 is a dimensional thing, it is related to the units. In fact I think it's a bit unusual to keep the units in midway through a calculation, it would have been better to bulk them together at the end, but don't let it confuse you!

Mathematically A-x=1/Ax

It's just a notational thing, you'll note that it let's you do that rule where you can just add the powers when you're multiplying things together.

e.g. A2*A-1=A2/A=A

so basically: m/s=ms-1
and: 1/s=s-1
 
billiards said:
In fact I think it's a bit unusual to keep the units in midway through a calculation, it would have been better to bulk them together at the end, but don't let it confuse you!
Omitting units is a shortcut; if you want to write true statements, you have to carry the units throughout the equation. (And being careful with the units can prevent a good number of mistakes too)
 
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 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top