Proportionality statements in physics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on deriving a linear equation from a set of values where Fc is proportional to 4√F. The provided values for Fc are 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30, while the corresponding values for F are 0.98, 1.07, 1.16, 1.32, and 1.50. The correct linear equation derived from the plotted data is Fc = 177√[4]{F} - 165, indicating that the initial slope of 3/0.02 was underestimated. This highlights the importance of accurately determining the slope and considering the y-intercept in proportionality statements.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of proportionality in physics
  • Familiarity with root functions and their graphical representations
  • Basic knowledge of linear equations and slope calculations
  • Experience with data plotting and interpretation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of proportionality statements in physics
  • Learn how to derive equations from plotted data points
  • Explore the significance of y-intercepts in linear equations
  • Investigate advanced graphing techniques for better data visualization
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics, educators teaching proportionality concepts, and anyone involved in data analysis and graphing in scientific contexts.

123aw
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A chart has values of Fc (dependent): 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, respectively. The dependent variable, F, has values 0.98, 1.07, 1.16, 1.32, 1.50, respectively. These values form a root graph.

Fc is proportional to 4√F, this is the proportionality statement allowing me to make the graph linear. The slope of the linear is 3 / 0.02.

How can I derive an equation for the linear using the slope and values I have if the slope is the constant?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


my attempt is[/B]
4√F × constant (slope)
however it does not work
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you considered adding y-intercept to your equation? I plotted your data and obtained the linear equation F_c = 177\sqrt[4]{F}-165. Also, I think the slope you have (3/0.02) is too underestimated for your data points.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
13K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
21K