Search results

That is correct. The answer is an irrational number, but in an exam you have to choose the closest option which is (C).

Actually in the solution it would have been quicker to state the law of triangles, sum of the interior angles must be 180o and therefore the gradient of the line CB must be -1.

The free-body diagram has three vectors as shown below.

This is the Double Slit Experiment. Go look up the Physics formula sheet and you will find a formula that links the positions of constructive interference in the interference pattern with the wavelength of light and the spacing d between the slits. Then you just have to interpret the information...

Yes, the hypothesis needs to be in there, otherwise what are you investigating? Your hypothesis creates the inquiry question, and your hypothesis must be referred to in your closing remarks to determine if you achieved what you set out to do. Spoiler Alert: drag force is not proportional to...

I chose my point of reference as the top of the cliff, so distances are measured from the top of the cliff.

@kkk579 The answer given in the paper is wrong, btw. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with your calculation, but there is no need to include the mass of the block. All objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. You can use the standard equations for uniformly accelerated motion.

Yes, you could do the calculation that way. If the object has half it's final velocity then it has a quarter of its final kinetic energy, and therefore it has lost a quarter of its gravitational potential energy, so it has fallen 1/4 x 50 metres, and it is 37.5 metres above the ground.

@kkk579 In question 6 (c) you performed a calculation based on energy. The correct way to calculate the height is to use v2 =u2 +2as Make v = 15.65 m/s, let u =0 and rearranging terms we can say S = 15.652 / 2 x 9.8 and the answer is 12.49 m

Question 15 (a) is also badly worded. I think what the examiner meant to say was, "Draw the force-vector diagram at the point Y." If you answer the question literally, the free-body diagram for the mass A is trivial, as @kkk579 has shown, although quantifying the forces is not quite so trivial...

There is no correct answer. All the options are false. The best way to analyse this force-time graph is to recognise that the area under the force-time graph is equal to the Impulse, which is also equal to the Change of Momentum. Break the graph into three regular shapes, a triangle, a...

Where does it say that the loop is moving? The loop isn't moving. You need to practice reading exam questions carefully and answering exactly the question you are given, not the question that you have memorised.

You could investigate the film "Lawrence of Arabia" directed by David Lean. You could investigate the works of Leni Riefenstahl.

Yes, almost certainly if your degree is from a respected Australian University you won't have a problem. Accreditation is all about the planning and execution by the University. It's not you that needs to be accredited. It's the faculty, their curriculum, their assessment practices and their...

Geez, this is a wacko question. Where did you get it? One way to solve the problem is to treat it as a lumped system. Determine the total moving mass of the system, determine the net force on the system, and from that work out the acceleration of the whole system. Then knowing the acceleration...

Accreditation matters if you are looking to have your qualifications recognised by a Professional Engineering Institution (such as IE Aust or the American Nuclear Society) and it might have an effect if you apply for a post-grad placement overseas. As far as entering the workforce goes, it would...

Module 1 is "Properties of Matter" and it includes flame tests of different ionic solutions of metals, and spectral evidence supporting the Bohr model of the atom. I suppose you could ask a student to recount a first-hand investigation of flame test for potassium ions and copper ions. Recall the...

I think you could say, "Planck showed that there was a decreasing intensity of radiation for frequency f > kT/h because radiant energy was quantized according to E = hf and if E >>kT then it could not be emitted."

Good questions - this shows you are really engaging. (i) Something I didn't mention before it is extremely unlikely that all the oscillators will have exactly the average energy kT. Entropy will make sure that this doesn't happen. There is a spread of energies or a distribution function for...

Firstly, let's clear up your description of the "classical" intensity distribution function. The "classical" intensity distribution function was derived by Lord Rayleigh and Sir James Jeans around 1905 - 1910. This function plots the intensity (watts per square metre per steradian) versus...