Post by: Ovalteenies on November 07, 2010, 05:25:14 pm
not planning on doing many exams since I probably have a better chance at chemistry :P
THANKS!
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1358998/Page%201.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1358998/Page%202.jpg
Post by: Gordo on November 07, 2010, 06:19:56 pm
Post by: cameron_15 on November 07, 2010, 06:58:07 pm
On my compute the picture is either tiny and unreadable or absolutely massive and I really can't be bothered downloading it and opening it on a good program...
Looks really good though, nice and succinct.
Post by: Ovalteenies on November 07, 2010, 07:26:08 pm
What are those formulas you have involving Vp, they look quite intersting.
Converting peak to rms and vice versa
Vrms is the equivalent voltage of a DC power supply
Post by: 3Xamz on November 07, 2010, 10:18:21 pm
On page 2, bottom left hand corner in "The Nature of matter"
You have:
p = mv = sqrt(2mE)
How'd you derive the sqrt bit?
Post by: Whatlol on November 07, 2010, 10:20:14 pm
therefore root (2EK) = rootmv
to make that equal mv, multiply both sides by root m
therefore root(2EKm) = mv.
Post by: 3Xamz on November 07, 2010, 10:22:50 pm
Good stuff, I'm having a good look through it both to better my understanding and to perhaps pick up on any mistakes for your sake :)
But, job well done man. Very thorough indeed.
You might want to add how to alter the fringe separation when passing light through slits, in there somewhere?
EDIT: Nvm, you have it first thing on page two. xD
Post by: Ovalteenies on November 08, 2010, 09:07:28 pm
Hope the physics exam doesn't follow the pattern of all the other ones
WTF is wrong with VCAA this year... METHODS I'M LOOKING AT YOU!
Post by: Whatlol on November 08, 2010, 09:23:59 pm
Thanks everyone, and glad to have helped some people :P
Hope the physics exam doesn't follow the pattern of all the other ones
WTF is wrong with VCAA this year... METHODS I'M LOOKING AT YOU!
i was secretly thinking this but didnt want to say it and jinx myself
Post by: Stormer on November 08, 2010, 09:38:44 pm
Post by: HardcoreCitizen on November 08, 2010, 10:56:52 pm
Anyway, you're missing equations for Power for Light, needed for calculating photons per second.
E=(P/N(photons)) = Pt and Watts from Power = Joules per second.
Also like stuff explaining why light cannot be described by wave theory if u cbl, (stopping Vo, Threshold frequency...e.t.c.) and also the stable electron equation thing; (nh/mv)=2pi-r to see if electrons fit the orbit, showing circumference of electron orbit corresponds to lambda. Also the extent of diffraction, I think it's if (L/W) is *greater* or equal to 1 for effective diffraction to occur. (accordin to Serps, so I'm not sure.)
Idk, mines got some other random crap that makes it too messy, but u can probs remember it anyway.
I'm gonna steal your electromagnetic cheat sheet lol.
Dohr Tony... you'd better try for physics or else... I'll get a 2.3 ontop of my 6 for methods.
Post by: Xavier1234 on November 08, 2010, 11:04:30 pm
Hey Tong Dong, guess you know who I am.
Anyway, you're missing equations for Power for Light, needed for calculating photons per second.
E=(P/N(photons)) = Pt and Watts from Power = Joules per second.
Also like stuff explaining why light cannot be described by wave theory if u cbl, (stopping Vo, Threshold frequency...e.t.c.) and also the stable electron equation thing; (nh/mv)=2pi-r to see if electrons fit the orbit, showing circumference of electron orbit corresponds to lambda. Also the extent of diffraction, I think it's if (L/W) is *greater* or equal to 1 for effective diffraction to occur. (accordin to Serps, so I'm not sure.)
Idk, mines got some other random crap that makes it too messy, but u can probs remember it anyway.
I'm gonna steal your electromagnetic cheat sheet lol.
Dohr Tony... you'd better try for physics or else... I'll get a 2.3 ontop of my 6 for methods.
the > or equal to 1 ratio thing is correct. thanks for the nh/mv=2pi-r didnt know that. lol. i only knew n(lambda)=circumference
Post by: HardcoreCitizen on November 08, 2010, 11:09:16 pm
Post by: schnappy on November 08, 2010, 11:18:15 pm
Post by: yuuhei on November 09, 2010, 08:32:36 am
this is awesome as!
Thanks heaps!!! :D
Post by: chap on November 09, 2010, 09:32:13 am
Post by: HardcoreCitizen on November 09, 2010, 12:26:29 pm
Cheers.
Post by: chap on November 09, 2010, 01:33:28 pm
For some reason I always use the wrong equations in the light and matter section...as well as the wrong planks costant value...Don't know what to do..
Post by: m@tty on November 09, 2010, 03:35:49 pm
Yours reads:
Which is wrong.
It should be wavelength on the denominator rather than frequency.
Post by: ChristineNguyen on November 09, 2010, 03:40:54 pm
Thanks, i'll be borrowing. Much love
lol of courseeee
Post by: Ovalteenies on November 09, 2010, 04:11:18 pm
Your definition of Faraday's law is wrong. The -ve part is Lenz's law, without the -ve it's Faraday's law.From my textbook:
FARADAY’S LAW OF INDUCTION states that:
E = –ΔΦB/Δt
That is, the EMF GENERATED in a conducting loop in which there is a changing
magnetic flux is equal to the negative rate of change of flux.
I spotted a small error in the energy formula in light and matter.THANKS!
Yours reads:
Which is wrong.
It should be wavelength on the denominator rather than frequency.
Fixed couple more errors:
- Under "Path Difference": fringe distance decreases by decreasing *d* not w
- Extent of diffraction is proportional to *(lamda)/w*
- The photoelectric effect's I-V graph may be a bit misleading: the information is correct, but the colours red and blue should be the other way around.
Post by: lachymm on November 09, 2010, 04:34:53 pm
Didn't know this one...
Post by: Ovalteenies on November 09, 2010, 04:44:34 pm
Change in flux = BLV * change in T?
Didn't know this one...
(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?E=\frac{\Delta%20\Phi%20}{\Delta%20t}) and (http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?E=Blv)
Rearrange:
(http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\Delta%20\Phi%20=Blv\Delta%20t)
Post by: lachymm on November 09, 2010, 06:28:36 pm
Post by: Ovalteenies on November 09, 2010, 06:46:19 pm
What is the reason for an iron core being placed in a solenoid increasing the magnetic field strength by "1000"Ha just copied from the textbook cause I didn't know what was important:
"We saw earlier that a piece of soft iron placed in a magnetic field becomes a temporary magnet. A piece of soft iron can easily be put right inside the solenoid. When the current is turned on, the field of the current induces magnetism in the iron. The field from the iron is now added to that of the current, making the total field very much stronger than that due to the current alone; in fact, it can be 1000 times greater. This arrangement is called an electromagnet."
Post by: waack on November 09, 2010, 09:58:55 pm
Post by: thatisanote on May 21, 2011, 12:21:00 pm
Post by: jinny1 on May 21, 2011, 12:27:46 pm
Post by: thatisanote on May 21, 2011, 12:31:36 pm
Post by: jaz_rocks_123 on May 29, 2011, 08:15:10 pm
Post by: onur369 on May 29, 2011, 08:19:12 pm
Post by: xZero on May 29, 2011, 08:51:50 pm
But seriously just use itutes cheatsheet, its not worth spending time on it since you'll memorise all the formulas
Post by: jinny1 on May 30, 2011, 05:08:16 pm
Mines complete, best cheatsheet.
umm care to share??? :P