Physics Practical Formula / Relation Proving

[MAVtKnmJ]

Hi, I am sure you know what I am talking about.

It's called the Linear Line Equation or something like that. We use it in the Second Question of the paper where the examiner gives us a relation and asks if the results of our experiment support this idea.

The formula I know is {(k1-k2) divided by (k1+k2 divided by 2)} multiply by 100%
If the answer is greater than 20% then the given relation is not correct and if it is less than 20% then the given relation is correct.

You guys know about this method of proving a relation? Is my formula correct?

Is there another way of proving the given relation?

Thanks!

 

[MAVtKnmJ]

C'mon fellas, no replies and yet so many views!

 

[bubbly]

the equation you mentioned is the only one i know of.
there may be others though.

 

[MAVtKnmJ]

Thanks, hoping to get more replies!

 

[MAVtKnmJ]

Still hoping

 

[ashhadazam]

WHich paper u talking about :||| Went abv my head :/ or maybe u did not explain well

 

[ashhadazam]

u mean proportional ??? Well in my school i have always done it like this and always got marks awarded.. Like there in our mock practical we had to prove the relation of k being inversely proportional to cos theta !! I juss took two values and if ur result proves dat (wihch happens almost all the time) then ur answer is correct !

 

[nannes]

I have never heard of this formula.Can anyone elaborate? What does K stand for?

 

[ifrah]

take a cnstant k...den if it says the values r directly related divide em n if it says inversli multipli eem..it should gve de same answer fr each set of readings..dt means ks a constant..relation proven,,,

 

[princesszahra]

it went around 6.64 x10^4 km above my head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
explain ur formula and plz state which specific question u mean?!

 

[nannes]

A li'l hep here plz

 

[mz23]

i've never used this formula...please elaborate a little on it!

 

[1992]

which formula is that?? never heard of it. could u calculate proportionality by using another way??¡

 

[ashhadazam]

Some one confirm this... This is how we have o prove ??? :// Practical tomorrow morning :/

 

[kerry]

suppost this is the question

h is directly proportional to x^2, prove is its true from the experimental values.

Then some where in the experiment you have calculated two values for h, h1 and h2 and two values for x, x1 and x2 so now you square the x=x2,(x^2)1 and (x^2)2.

No as we know from the charles l law that when 2things r directly proportional then h/(x^2) is equal to a constant
(h/(x^2))=constant (k) t

then you put the h1/(x^2)1=k1 and this is the constant for one set of value,
and now h2/(x^2)2=k2

So, we know to prove that it is directly proportional then the percentage difference between k1 and k2 should be less then 20%

i hope it helps ohh also if it says that prove that if its inversely proportional you can follow the boyles law which states that (h)(x^2)=k

 

[kerry]

i was looking at the markscheme for practicles and came across the word "FALSE ORIGIN"

What does that mean regarding graphs and do we have to state something on the answer paper when this happens????

PLZZ LET ME KNW ASAP...thanks

 

[1992]

its false origin when the graph doesnt fit so insteaad of puting 0, u can start with 2 for exmaple