Phy practical 33 on 6th Nov

[athaan]

I got around 0.044 for the y-intercept, and 33.3 for the gradient. Hahah, I didn't know what I did wrong. :s

 

[TeKnOzOr]

I got around 0.044 for the y-intercept, and 33.3 for the gradient. Hahah, I didn't know what I did wrong. :s

Hmmm....PERFECT dr!! its Gud!!
huh...?! what you did wrong?!

 

[Albert Einstein]

InnocentAngel and Sheikh Nahiyan well all wat u have is to give a valid reason whether it is valid of not, btw Angel calculated the % difference, pretty good but for me the speed was the same for 2sf, with different values of x ans t so i concluded that since they are the same to 2 s.f they can be considered valid, wat about yours was it valid or not ??

 

[athaan]

since you said

Hmmm....PERFECT dr!! its Gud!!
huh...?! what you did wrong?!

I guess it's my gradient. I got around 33.3, and when I ask people around me they said they got around 3.00 - 5.00. I hope it's actually right, considering my graph.

 

[TeKnOzOr]

since you said

I guess it's my gradient. I got around 33.3, and when I ask people around me they said they got around 3.00 - 5.00. I hope it's actually right, considering my graph.

hehee...dude...actually it must be in the range of 3.00-6.00.....sorry to tell you, but ur answer is wrong...me i got 3.66!!
but dnt worry....there is e.c.f in this!! so just chill!!

 

[athaan]

hehee...dude...actually it must be in the range of 3.00-6.00.....sorry to tell you, but ur answer is wrong...me i got 3.66!!
but dnt worry....there is e.c.f in this!! so just chill!!

Ah, I see then. I hope I won't lose much points!

 

[Sheikh Nahiyan]

InnocentAngel and Sheikh Nahiyan well all wat u have is to give a valid reason whether it is valid of not, btw Angel calculated the % difference, pretty good but for me the speed was the same for 2sf, with different values of x ans t so i concluded that since they are the same to 2 s.f they can be considered valid, wat about yours was it valid or not ??

Albert Einstein Was my reason good enough? What do you think? And I had used 3.s.f for all my values! Most of my friends did what InnocentAngel
did.. I couldnt figure that out and so did it the way I understood it! I am worried about my gradient cuz I dont know how it came as 369.63! It should have been 3.69 or something :\

Dont know.. overally the paper was okay! Just hoping I get good marks in it

 

[Albert Einstein]

Albert Einstein Was my reason good enough? What do you think? And I had used 3.s.f for all my values! Most of my friends did what InnocentAngel
did.. I couldnt figure that out and so did it the way I understood it! I am worried about my gradient cuz I dont know how it came as 369.63! It should have been 3.69 or something :\

Dont know.. overally the paper was okay! Just hoping I get good marks in it

Did u use m for the length ??

 

[Sheikh Nahiyan]

Yep! I took the length in meters and I did it the way the question said.. found the gradient using the formula by y2-y1 / x2-x1!

 

[Albert Einstein]

Then you must have quoted your answers to 10^-2(in the table) and forgot to include it when calculating the gradient

 

[athaan]

I've quoted the scale to my calculation for gradient, but somehow I got 33.33.

 

[Pals_1010]

What errors and improvements did you guys write about?

 

[Sheikh Nahiyan]

Then you must have quoted your answers to 10^-2(in the table) and forgot to include it when calculating the gradient

Yes! I did that :S So my whole answer is wrong.. and they will give me a zero? :S

 

[Albert Einstein]

nah u'll get the ur marks sucessful collection of data n others , bt u may lose 1 mark in the calculation of the gradient, zats all