-
Prepare by Xtremepapers!
🚀 NEW from the xtremepape.rs team: AI exam prep — 120,000+ worked solutions, and it marks your handwritten working from a photo. Sign in with your forum account & try it free → prepare.xtremepape.rs
Physics P33?
- Thread starter iwillrise
- Start date
I said it supported the relationship cos the % difference between the values of k were less than 10%, which as far as I know, is the correct answer.
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 38
bro less than doesn't support the relationship ^ eg k1 less than k2 mine didn't support
Not that one k value was less than the others, but the DIFFERENCE between them was less than 10%. Ask around, I'm almost sure it's the right answer.
Yep I got like 11 Percent so I said it supports theory
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 38
Well hopefully we both right 
but I had no clue what to write as a 4th limitation only thing I had difficulty with was fumbling the stopwatch lmao which happened to me but no idea if I'll be awarded with that
but I had no clue what to write as a 4th limitation only thing I had difficulty with was fumbling the stopwatch lmao which happened to me but no idea if I'll be awarded with that- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 38
if your asking what my percentage uncertainty was it was 10 percent idk if it co relates to that question I kinda can't remember but if it does thanks for this appreciate it lol ... Not really ;///
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 18
Well i think %difference in k depends on your answers.. mine was really large so didnt support the answer..
btw what was your s.f justification and did you use the vernier calliper to measure height of the container or a ruler???
btw what was your s.f justification and did you use the vernier calliper to measure height of the container or a ruler???
Well i think %difference in k depends on your answers.. mine was really large so didnt support the answer..
btw what was your s.f justification and did you use the vernier calliper to measure height of the container or a ruler???
s.f. was just that I used 3 sig. figures because the values I had used to calculate it with were also to 3 sig. figures. The right answer, I think.
And I used the vernier calliper to measure height, you definitely had to use that, so that all the values you measured were to the same degree of accuracy.
The exam was okay, I think. I got the gradient quite big, I think, like 20-something. I'm not sure about that. And I must have messed up some part of the time experiment, and got at least one of the limitations and improvements wrong.
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 38
I
great question man I used ruler but I think both instruments would give the same answer haha because they measure in cm . - can't back that tho hahahahaWell i think %difference in k depends on your answers.. mine was really large so didnt support the answer..
btw what was your s.f justification and did you use the vernier calliper to measure height of the container or a ruler???
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 38
So I got another part wrong ... You're like the grinch man :3
sorry mate, just trying to help. Though, if it makes you feel better, I messed up the part where you had to time the descent of the cylinder or something. Really stupid mistake.- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 38
Man will i get marks on using the ruler to measure h ?Well i think %difference in k depends on your answers.. mine was really large so didnt support the answer..
btw what was your s.f justification and did you use the vernier calliper to measure height of the container or a ruler???
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 38
Haha mate I know your better then me so :3
But I think lot will depend on The papers coming up I made a lot of silly mistakes and my radioactivity question was wrong too so I'd be happy to get a C ;(
You're talking about P3? Really hoping to do well on P1, gonna be studying hard for that after ******* up my paper 3 really bad. Just wasn't good at all, though my friends told me it was good.
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 83
- Points
- 38
Tbh I screwed up the last part . Man 1 hour was just sad scene but a lot of grading depends on the paper that's coming up so good luck there . I have no idea but my friends told me if k1 is less then k2 relationship doesn't support but I'm gonna confirm that tho it sounds silly and unlikely haha
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 18
since they didnt provide a ruler, they were probably expecting us to measure using the vernier caliper..... so we might just loose a mark for that.. :/
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 23
was there an electricity question?
- Messages
- 3,355
- Reaction score
- 20,175
- Points
- 523
What were the errors and improvements? I wrote these:
Errors:
I said my relationship is not justified since the error involved in k is greater than the raw error calculated in (the exact part number).
The value of significance was i guess 3 or 4(according to the previous data given) because the raw data(diameter and height) also contains 3 or 4 significant figures.
For Q1,i calculated my values in metre(m) instead of centimetres... But my ans is same like ppl got 21.0cm and my value for last part was 0.208m and i got 32.4g. Is it correct?
Errors:
- Parallax error when measuring height of the container
- Human reaction error can occur while measuring the time taken for the container to reach the bottom
- Height from which the container is released can vary
- 2 set of readings are not enough to draw the conclusion
- Line of sight of eye should be perpendicular to the vernier calliper while measuring the height of the container
- Make use of Handicam to measure the time more accurately
- Place a stand near the large container. The top of the stand will act as a fiducial mark from where the small container is released in every experiment(i might lose this mark beacuse i couldnt explain it properly. I should have mentioned fixed height)
- Take 6 set of readings and plot a graph to draw the conclusion
I said my relationship is not justified since the error involved in k is greater than the raw error calculated in (the exact part number).
The value of significance was i guess 3 or 4(according to the previous data given) because the raw data(diameter and height) also contains 3 or 4 significant figures.
For Q1,i calculated my values in metre(m) instead of centimetres... But my ans is same like ppl got 21.0cm and my value for last part was 0.208m and i got 32.4g. Is it correct?
Last edited: