PHYSICS 9702 P3 help!!!

[xxfarhaxx]

hey guyx,
how do we calculate the limit of experimental accuracy for k values in Q2....as examiner reports frequently have stated that we have to set up the limits accordin the % uncertaintiy we have calculated in the previous parts....
plz help ...thnx in adv....

its simple.. fnd da 2 k values..n use ths equation

k(bg)-K(smll)
------------------- *100
1/2* (k1 + k2)

 

[aom]

its simple.. fnd da 2 k values..n use ths equation

k(bg)-K(smll)
------------------- *100
1/2* (k1 + k2)

After we do this formula what should we do??

 

[xxfarhaxx]

After we do this formula what should we do??

the ans u gt is %error..if its less than 20% then it supprts da statmt gven if nt it dsnt!!

 

[aom]

the ans u gt is %error..if its less than 20% then it supprts da statmt gven if nt it dsnt!!

Thanks so much

 

[SciGen]

its simple.. fnd da 2 k values..n use ths equation

k(bg)-K(smll)
------------------- *100
1/2* (k1 + k2)

yar some ppl say that its the greater value of k in the denominator?

 

[xxfarhaxx]

yar some ppl say that its the greater value of k in the denominator?

wt do u mean??

 

[Jaf]

It better to take 2 Readings only....Because then you can write -> "2 readings are not enough to draw conclusion" in Limitations

LOL

 

[roadtrip9o9]

why do we do 0.5 (k1 + k2) again ?

 

[Jaf]

For example if i have K1= 0.276 and K2=0.319 is it directly proportional or not. Please with a step by step explaination .. THANK YOU

[(0.319-0.276)/0.319] x 100 = 13.5%
Now if you're going by the method of comparing this with the individual uncertainty of 'k' you have already found in the experiment earlier, and this percentage uncertainty is more than that individual percentage uncertainty, then it IS directly proportional.
If you go by way of believing that the % uncertainty should not be greater than 20% for a statement to be true, then too it IS directly proportional.

 

[Jaf]

why do we do 0.5 (k1 + k2) again ?

We don't.

 

[aom]

Okay....... whose write?? Mr Jaf or Mrs xxfarhaxx??????

 

[roadtrip9o9]

jaf can u explain ur method in a detailed way plz ?

 

[Skhan94]

Okay....... whose write?? Mr Jaf or Mrs xxfarhaxx??????

id go with JAF..!

 

[SciGen]

[(0.319-0.276)/0.319] x 100 = 13.5%
Now if you're going by the method of comparing this with the individual uncertainty of 'k' you have already found in the experiment earlier, and this percentage uncertainty is more than that individual percentage uncertainty, then it IS directly proportional.
If you go by way of believing that the % uncertainty should not be greater than 20% for a statement to be true, then too it IS directly proportional.

jaf yar how to calculate individual % uncertainty in order to compare???

 

[roadtrip9o9]

that's y i said more detailed plz

 

[oldfashionedgirl]

look PEOPLE, u subtract the two k values, divide with the SMALLER value of k preferentially.....multiply the answer with 100. Now compare this uncertainty with the %uncertainty calculated earlier....if this value is less than or equal to the earlier value then the relation holds true. Otherwise not.

 

[roadtrip9o9]

look PEOPLE, u subtract the two k values, divide with the SMALLER value of k preferentially.....multiply the answer with 100. Now compare this uncertainty with the %uncertainty calculated earlier....if this value is less than or equal to the earlier value then the relation holds true. Otherwise not.

.. someone just said to divide from the large value :/ ? and ur saying the opposite

 

[mooko]

I HAVE THE SOLUTION .... TRUST ME AND JAF ,,,,, U K(LARGE)-K(SMALL) AND DIVIDE BY K(LARGE) THEN MULTIPLY BY HUNDRED IF THE ANSWER IS LESS THAN 20 % THEN THEY ARE DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL ....... END OF STORY DONT LET ANYONE ELSE CONFUSE U AND AY ALLAH BE WITH U !!!