Qualification > Sciences
Physics Discussion HERE ONLY!
Wahab09:
57 was 100% correct my friend!!
im the incorrect one.
i said i forgot to divide refractive index by 1 like u did :-[
but oh well.. 1 mark
emi:
hey wahab can u tell me how did u calculate the mass ? like what method you used ?
and one of my friend mentioned the way of using thread and winding the plastic and such for Q 1 ,, will it be correct ?
what was the answer for the last last Question it had one line with 2 mars
Wahab09:
emi..
you just rearrange the equation to hald of everything u had in a but without the mass.. and make the mass the subject..
it becomes 3750
it was just 1 mark or 2 u dnt need the working for it..
and many people did the winding thing and i dont think its correct cuz they sed they wanted specifically the measurment of only one of the peices..
u cudve used calipers or a micro meter
the last question i wrote from negative to positive (aint sure)
Eamyzz:
i did evrythng as u guys dd and in da first q i used da alpha emitter and i said 2 put an alpha emitter and put infront of it a paper and behind it a detector and then i said depending on da no of alpha rays able to penetrate da paper and detected by da detector the thickness can b determined if too many rays pass dat means its very thin if nothing passed that means its very thick....is it right? did any1 do it like me ?
noor92:
Why would you divide refractive index by one?? I did
R.I = sin i/sin r ...
1.49 = sin 35 / sin r
and my answer was 23. something
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version