Can Someone Review My Lab's Theory Section?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on a request for feedback on a lab's theory section, which is the only part completed so far. The author seeks general critiques and has specific questions highlighted in red within the text. Responses clarify concepts related to electric current, emphasizing that it is measured in charge flow per second rather than over a time interval. Participants express a preference for receiving documents in PDF format to avoid security risks associated with Word files. The author plans to revise the write-up based on the feedback received.
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I am currently working on my lab, and am wondering if someone would be so kind as to give it a gander. The only section I need looked over is the theory section, which, incidentally, is the only part I have written thusfar. I'd really appreciate it if you could critique the theory section in general, but I do have some specific questions that I have inserted in the text, colored red.

Thank you in advance! :biggrin:

PS This is the first draft, and it goes without saying, that it may be rough.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Electric current is, when flow is steady, the rate at which charge flows between the two points during a time interval (is this time interval the amount of time it takes the charge to flow from one terminal to the next?):

No. It's "per second".

Compare with water flowing in a pipe. The flow rate of the water is in "Liters per second".

the infinitesimal unit of charge that flows (where is it flowing? Between the two points?)

No. Think of it as flowing "past a point".

So overall current is the quantity of charge flowing past a point per second.

I haven't read the rest of your write up.
 
I'll make the corrections, with regard to your suggestions.
 
Bump.
 
Bashyboy said:
I'll make the corrections, with regard to your suggestions.

Bashyboy said:
Bump.
How can you bump that.

Show us the edited write-up. (Please don't give a link to a word ('.doc') document. Many of us won't open them -- risk of virus, etc. Use a pdf format or similar.)
 
Well, he said that he only viewed that parts in red, and not the rest. So, I was hoping that someone could view the rest. But, if you'd like the slightly revised, that's fine. I'll just edit my original post to include.

EDIT: I can't edit my original post. Haha. I will just attach it to this post
 

Attachments

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 '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