Can Reviewing Old Physics Problems Improve Understanding?

  • Thread starter Thread starter redhot209
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Reviewing old physics problems can enhance understanding by reinforcing concepts and problem-solving skills. The discussion includes specific problems related to buoyancy, fluid dynamics, and pressure calculations, with provided answers for each scenario. Participants are encouraged to share methods and approaches for solving these problems, highlighting the importance of grasping underlying principles. Engaging with these types of problems can lead to a deeper comprehension of physics concepts. Overall, revisiting and analyzing past problems is a valuable exercise for improving physics knowledge.
redhot209
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Ok so, I was reviewing some of my old physics problems, to understand it better. I have no clue how I did these problems, so I was wondering if anyone can help me?
1. A polar bear of mass 200 kg stands on an ice floe 100 cm thick. What is the minimum area of the floe that will just support the bear in saltwater of specific gravity of 1.03? The specific gravity of ice is 0.98.
The Answer was 4.0m^2
2. Water flows through a horizontal pipe of cross-sectional area 10.0 cm^2 at a pressure of 0.250 atm. the flow rate is 1.00 X10^-3 m^3/s. At a valve, the effective cross-secitonal area of the pipe is reduced to 5.00 cm^2. what is the pressure at the valve?
The Answer was 0.235 atm
3. A hole of radius 1.00 mm occurs in the bottom of a water storage tank that holds water a a depth of 15m. At what rate will water flow out of the hole?
The Answer was 5.4 x 10^5 m^3/s
4. A 1.0-m^3 object floats in water with 20% of it above the waterline. What does the object weigh out of the water?
The Answer was 7,840 N
Sorry, I know this is a lot of work, but it would very helpful thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, this is about ten minutes worth of work. Any ideas how you would do any of these?
 
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 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
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