Some (motion) EPI related questions.

[SDPHD]

I'm in the process of writing up my report for my EPI and I have a couple of minor questions.

I've referred to potential energy as 'Gravitational Potential Energy' as there is more than one kind of potential energy, so is it okay referring to kinetic energy as 'Newtonian Kinetic Energy' or am I being too pedantic?

I've also written down a couple of equations and as a key I've written things like m=Mass of object (kg). I've written v=Horizontal component of velocity of object (ms^-1) but I feel like it's not good English. Should I get rid of 'of object' for both (i.e. m=Mass (kg) and v=Horizontal component of velocity (ms^-1)) or is that not specific enough?

I feel like little things like this could be the difference between gaining or losing a few marks.  :buck2:

Thanks and I'm sure I'll have more questions sooner or later.

[xZero]

for potential energy, always state which 1 your referring to (gravitational or any other), i would leave kinetic energy as it is. Also i wouldn't worry about the object and stuff, this is not an essay so you don't necessarily need imba good english, I would focus more on other stuff (errors, how the principle is related to the stuff you're doing etc.)

[SDPHD]

Thanks for the reply xZero, I'll make sure to focus on errors and things like that. I have a ton of errors to write about.

[Thu Thu Train]

Being way too pedantic just call it Kinetic Energy.

[SDPHD]

Being way too pedantic just call it Kinetic Energy.

 

Thanks.

Beleive me, repeating English has turned me into a monster!

[SDPHD]

Another minor question.

In our EPI, we're comparing real world results against theoretical results.

Am I being too pedantic (again) in saying this?

"Knowing the theoretical period of time the object will take to reach the reference point from entering projectile motion, the theoretical horizontal range can be calculated in conjunction with the theoretical value for the object’s vertical component of velocity."

After all, all the values I'm working with in the theory section are infact 'theoretical' and not the actual values.

Should I leave all the 'theoretical' out of it or will it not make a difference.

Thanks

[xZero]

leave the 'theoretical' in if you're trying to find a theoretical velocity, but if you're working with theoretical value for a section, just mention it at the top 'the following values are purely theoretical' will be fine and you can drop the word theoretical from your section.

[SDPHD]

Thanks xZero, I mentioned this at the beginning of the theoretical section.

"The theoretical data is therefore calculated assuming an ‘ideal situation’. This applies to the following equations/calculations."

And I got rid of all the 'theoretical' from the rest.

Looks cleaner now.

[Thu Thu Train]

"Assuming ideal conditions we can calculate the theoretical values using the following equations:"

Just my two cents.

[SDPHD]

"Assuming ideal conditions we can calculate the theoretical values using the following equations:"

Just my two cents.

Even better, thanks!

[SDPHD]

Just wondering, what types of errors are there?

I know there are random, systematic and parallax.

Are there any more?

Also, what are the definitions of each?

Thanks

[Vincezor]

Just wondering, what types of errors are there?

I know there are random, systematic and parallax.

Are there any more?

Also, what are the definitions of each?

Thanks

Systematic: The error is always either always above or always either below actual result
Random: errors in measurement that lead to inconsistent measured values when repeated - Results could be both above and below actual result
Parallax: No idea, sorry :S

That's what I remember from chemistry anyway, I'm not sure if it fully applies to physics, but I'm assuming it would?