The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Who is up for a challenge?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Who is up for a challenge?

  • 131 Replies
  • 47610 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chemistry4me (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 7705
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #120 on: 07/07/2009 06:22:51 »
I think my head just exploded after all of that.
Logged
 



lyner

  • Guest
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #121 on: 07/07/2009 08:09:19 »
As we've assumed the current yo be 1A, the value of R is 7.2 ohms.
Logged
 

Offline Chemistry4me (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 7705
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #122 on: 07/07/2009 08:23:17 »
Didn't we already know that R was 7.2 ohms?
Logged
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 4605
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 13 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #123 on: 07/07/2009 10:23:51 »
The exact value of Q = (1/R)√(L/C) is 5/4 (see post up).
Logged
 

Offline syhprum

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 5096
  • Activity:
    6%
  • Thanked: 64 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #124 on: 07/07/2009 11:54:45 »
How can we include √(L/C) in our calculations when we are told nothing about them ?.
We are told nothing about the value of R we can only assume a convinient value.
In my opinion the only information we can derive from the data given is the Q factor (1.25) and the phase angle of the current (53.13°).
« Last Edit: 07/07/2009 19:49:40 by syhprum »
Logged
syhprum
 



Offline lightarrow

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 4605
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 13 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #125 on: 07/07/2009 19:56:11 »
Quote from: syhprum on 07/07/2009 11:54:45
How can we include √(L/C) in our calculations when we are told nothing about them ?.
Not understood this one.

Quote
We are told nothing about the value of R we can only assume a convinient value.
In my opinion the only information we can derive from the data given is the Q factor (1.25) and the phase angle of the current (53.13°).
Exactly. We have 3 equations and 4 unknown. Solved them we have the parameters I wrote, from which we can only find what you said.
Logged
 

Offline Chemistry4me (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 7705
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #126 on: 09/07/2009 00:40:00 »
Why does Ek = 0.5mv2 but E = mc2
How are the two equations related? What happened to the 'm'?
Logged
 

Offline syhprum

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 5096
  • Activity:
    6%
  • Thanked: 64 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #127 on: 09/07/2009 05:19:14 »
E=mc^2 is derived from geometric considerations and is relevent as velocities approach c E=0.5*mv^2 belongs to the world before Einstein and Lorentz and does not take into account the changes that take place in M as the velocity increases.
Logged
syhprum
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 4605
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 13 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #128 on: 09/07/2009 13:06:20 »
Quote from: Chemistry4me on 09/07/2009 00:40:00
Why does Ek = 0.5mv2 but E = mc2
They are both false [:)]

Quote
How are the two equations related? What happened to the 'm'?
Ek = 0.5mv2 is valid only for bodies with non zero mass and at non relativistic speeds; E = mc2 is valid only at zero speed.
The correct one, valid for all speeds and with massive or non-massive bodies (in special relativity) is:

E2 = (cp)2 + (mc2)2

where p = momentum. If m = 0 (photons, gluons, ecc.) then E = cp. At zero velocity p = 0 so E = mc2.

Kinetic energy is total energy minus rest energy:

Ek = E - mc2
« Last Edit: 09/07/2009 13:08:41 by lightarrow »
Logged
 



lyner

  • Guest
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #129 on: 09/07/2009 18:58:14 »
Quote from: lightarrow on 07/07/2009 19:56:11
Quote from: syhprum on 07/07/2009 11:54:45
How can we include √(L/C) in our calculations when we are told nothing about them ?.
Not understood this one.

Quote
We are told nothing about the value of R we can only assume a convinient value.
In my opinion the only information we can derive from the data given is the Q factor (1.25) and the phase angle of the current (53.13°).
Exactly. We have 3 equations and 4 unknown. Solved them we have the parameters I wrote, from which we can only find what you said.
Yes - the circuit can be scaled up or down in Impedance, according to taste and availability of components. It's just the ratios that count.
Logged
 

Offline Chemistry4me (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 7705
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #130 on: 10/07/2009 00:17:16 »
Quote from: lightarrow on 09/07/2009 13:06:20
Ek = 0.5mv2 is valid only for bodies with non zero mass and at non relativistic speeds; E = mc2 is valid only at zero speed.
The correct one, valid for all speeds and with massive or non-massive bodies (in special relativity) is:

E2 = (cp)2 + (mc2)2

where p = momentum. If m = 0 (photons, gluons, ecc.) then E = cp. At zero velocity p = 0 so E = mc2.

Kinetic energy is total energy minus rest energy:

Ek = E - mc2
Ooh  [:o] (showing my ignorance here) That's a new one! I must really remember that.
Logged
 

Offline Chemistry4me (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 7705
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Who is up for a challenge?
« Reply #131 on: 20/07/2009 07:17:53 »
This question has me scratching my head, I can't seem to get the 'correct' answer. [:I] [:-\] Maybe I'm not understanding something. It goes something like this: A uniform beam 2.0 metres long is known to weigh between 400 N and 500 N. Using a spring scale, S and a pivot block, P, an experiment was made with the beam balanced horizontally on P and S to enable the weight to be calculated. The spring scale reads 85 N when P is 0.75 m from one end, what is the weight of the beam?
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Does the Cambrian Explosion challenge evolution by natural selection?

Started by Alan McDougallBoard Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology

Replies: 15
Views: 5505
Last post 16/06/2016 13:55:22
by Alan McDougall
Creationist Challenge (proving the existence of light)

Started by albertBoard General Science

Replies: 9
Views: 5045
Last post 07/03/2007 22:36:39
by another_someone
For real maths geeks - fancy a challenge?

Started by imatfaalBoard General Science

Replies: 2
Views: 3874
Last post 12/08/2010 12:18:29
by peppercorn
Challenge Britain’s Change-Makers

Started by mission21Board General Science

Replies: 0
Views: 2496
Last post 05/03/2009 17:07:02
by mission21
Is this challenge to the equivalence principle valid?

Started by jeffreyHBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 21
Views: 2566
Last post 08/03/2018 12:04:09
by rmolnav
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.158 seconds with 60 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.