#$&* course Phy 121 Startup & Orientation - physicsIf your solution to stated problem does not match the given solution, you should self-critique per instructions at http://vhcc2.vhcc.edu/dsmith/geninfo/labrynth_created_fall_05/levl1_22/levl2_81/file3_259.htm.
.............................................
Given Solution: `aIt will take 5 seconds to complete the change. 30 mph - 20 mph = 10 mph change at 2 mph per second (i.e., 2 mph every second) implies 5 seconds to go from 20 mph to 30 mph Change in speed is 2 mph/second * 7 seconds = 14 mph Add this to the initial 10 mph and the speedometer now reads 24 mph. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&* ********************************************* Question: `q002. An automobile traveling down a hill passes a certain milepost traveling at a speed of 10 mph, and proceeds to coast to a certain lamppost further down the hill, with its speed increasing by 2 mph every second. The time required to reach the lamppost is 10 seconds. It then repeats the process, this time passing the milepost at a speed of 20 mph. This time: Will the vehicle require more or less than 10 seconds to reach the lamppost? Since its initial speed was 10 mph greater than before, does it follow that its speed at the lamppost will be 10 mph greater than before? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: At 0 seconds (initial time) at the first milepost, the automobile is traveling at 10 mph. It arrives at a lamppost; no information is known about this event. Then it passes a milepost at 20mph. The rate of acceleration for this sequence is 2 mph per second. You want to know if the automobile can get to the lamppost in 10 seconds or less, and basically all I know is that it arrives at another point after the lamppost at a known velocity. Based on this known velocity, I can calculate the time it would take to arrive at the second point (since there is enough information). A = Δv / Δt 2 mph / s = (20 mph - 10 mph) / Δt Δt 2 mph / s = 10 mph Δt = 10 mph / 2 mph / s Δt = 5 s So based on the facts, it only took 5 seconds to arrive at the second milepost. Since the second milepost is after the lamppost in question, then I can infer that the automobile will pass the lamppost at a point in time less than 10 seconds from passing the first milepost at 10 mph. confidence rating #$&* 3, just not sure about exactly what the question asks ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.............................................
Given Solution: `aIf it starts coasting down the same section of road at 20 mph, and if velocity changes by the same amount every second, the automobile should always be traveling faster than if it started at 10 mph, and would therefore take less than 10 seconds. The conditions here specify equal distances, which implies less time on the second run. The key is that, as observed above, the automobile has less than 10 seconds to increase its speed. Since its speed is changing at the same rate as before and it has less time to change it will therefore change by less. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&* ********************************************* Question: `q003. The following example shows how we can measure the rate at which an automobile speeds up: If an automobile speeds up from 30 mph to 50 mph as the second hand of a watch moves from the 12-second position to the 16-second position, and its speed changes by 20 mph in 4 seconds. This gives us an average rate of velocity change equal to 20 mph / 4 seconds = 5 mph / second. We wish to compare the rates at which two different automobiles increase their speed: Which automobile speeds up at the greater rate, one which speeds up from 20 mph to 30 mph in five seconds or one which speeds up from 40 mph to 90 mph in 20 seconds? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: The acceleration for a car speeding up from 20 mph to 30 mph in 5 seconds: A = Δv / Δt A = (30 mph - 20 mph) / 5 s A = 10 mph / 5 s A = 2 mph / s The acceleration for a car speeding up from 40 mph to 90 mph in 20 seconds: A = Δv / Δt A = (90 mph - 40 mph) / 20 s A = 50 mph / 20 s A = 2.5 mph / s That stated, the car accelerating from 40 mph to 90 mph it 20 seconds is accelerating a little bit faster than the car accelerating from 20 mph to 30 mph in 5 seconds. confidence rating #$&* 3 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.............................................
Given Solution: The first automobile's speed changes from 20 mph to 30mph, a 10 mph difference, which occurs in 5 seconds. So the rate of chage in 10 mph / (5 sec) = 2 mph / sec. = rate of change of 2 mph per second. The second automobile's speed changes from 40 mph to 90 mph, a 50 mph difference in 20 seconds so the rate of change is 50 mph / (20 sec) = 2.5 mph per second. Therefore, the second auto is increasing its velocity ar a rate which is .5 mph / second greater than that of the first. Self-critique: ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&* ********************************************* Question: `q004. If an automobile of mass 1200 kg is pulled by a net force of 1800 Newtons, then the number of Newtons per kg is 1800 / 1200 = 1.5. The rate at which an automobile speeds up is determined by the net number of Newtons per kg. Two teams pulling on ropes are competing to see which can most quickly accelerate their initially stationary automobile to 5 mph. One team exerts a net force of 3000 Newtons on a 1500 kg automobile while another exerts a net force of 5000 Newtons on a 2000 kg automobile. Which team will win and why? If someone pulled with a force of 500 Newtons in the opposite direction on the automobile predicted to win, would the other team then win? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: The automobile acceleration for team pulling on a 1500 kg automobile with 3000 Newtons: a = F / m a = 3000 N / 1500 kg a = 2 N / kg The automobile acceleration for team pulling on a 2000 kg automobile with 5000 Newtons: a = F / m a = 5000 N / 2000 kg a = 2.5 N / kg The second team will win as the net amount of force being applied towards accelerating the automobile is higher and their combined hard work will clearly defeat the other team. confidence rating #$&* 3 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.............................................
Given Solution: `aThe first team's rate is 3000 Newtons divided by 1500 kg or 2 Newtons per kg, while the second team's rate is 5000 Newtons divided by 2000 kg or 2.5 Newtons per kg. The second team therefore increases velocity more quickly. Since both start at the same velocity, zero, the second team will immediately go ahead and will stay ahead. The second team would still win even if the first team was hampered by the 500 Newton resistance, because 5000 Newtons - 500 Newtons = 4500 Newtons of force divided by 2000 kg of car gives 2.25 Newtons per kg, still more than the 2 Newtons / kg of the first team &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&* ********************************************* Question: `q005. Both the mass and velocity of an object contribute to its effectiveness in a collision. If a 250-lb football player moving at 10 feet per second collides head-on with a 200-lb player moving at 20 feet per second in the opposite direction, which player do you predict will be moving backward immediately after the collision, and why? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: The momentum of a 250-lb football player moving at 10 ft / s: p = m * v p = 250-lb * 10 ft / s p = 2500 lb ft / s The momentum of a 200-lb football player moving at 20 ft / s: p = m * v p = 200-lb * 20 ft / s p = 4000 lb ft / s I predict that second player is going to totally send that first player sailing through the air. confidence rating #$&* 3 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.............................................
Given Solution: `aGreater speed and greater mass both provide advantages. In this case the player with the greater mass has less speed, so we have to use some combination of speed and mass to arrive at a conclusion. It turns out that if we multiply speed by mass we get the determining quantity, which is called momentum. 250 lb * 10 ft/sec = 2500 lb ft / sec and 200 lb * 20 ft/sec = 4000 lb ft / sec, so the second player will dominate the collision. In this course we won't use pounds as units, and in a sense that will become apparent later on pounds aren't even valid units to use here. However that's a distinction we'll worry about when we come to it. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&* ********************************************* Question: `q006. Two climbers eat Cheerios for breakfast and then climb up a steep mountain as far as they can until they use up all their energy from the meal. All other things being equal, who should be able to climb further up the mountain, the 200-lb climber who has eaten 12 ounces of Cheerios or the 150-lb climber who has eaten 10 ounces of Cheerios? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: Wow. That's definitely a rough one to answer very practically due to the several differences between two people other than body weight. But assuming all variables are irrelevant, I'm not sure exactly how to solve this one. What I'm going to do is compare the ratio of energy input versus weight for processing to generate a proportional rate of average consumption, differences in metabolism ignored. 12 oz per 200 lbs is 0.06 oz per lb 10 oz per 150 lbs is 0.066666667 oz per lb Looks like the lightweight makes it a few more steps. But the 200-lb guy probably has more fat in reserve than the other guy, for the long haul, he will probably make it farther if they were starving. Hauling a little extra weight around means he's burning more energy than the lighter climber, too. That means his 12 oz is going an even shorter distance. But for all intents of a generic, very likely useless comparison, the lightweight climber won't need to eat by marginally less than his heavier companion.
.............................................
Given Solution: `aThe comparison we make here is the number of ounces of Cheerios per pound of body weight. We see that the first climber has 12 oz / (200 lb) = .06 oz / lb of weight, while the second has 10 0z / (150 lb) = .067 oz / lb. The second climber therefore has more energy per pound of body weight. It's the ounces of Cheerios that supply energy to lift the pounds of climber. The climber with the fewer pounds to lift for each ounce of energy-producing Cheerios will climb further. STUDENT COMMENT I am satisfied with how I worked out the problem, though it would be nice to know what formulas to use in case my instinct is wrong. I should have got the energy used per pound by rereading the question. INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE There are two points to these problems: 1. You can go a long ways with common sense, intuition or instinct, and you often don't need formulas. 2. Common sense, intuition and instinct aren't the easiest things to apply correctly, and it's really easy to get things turned around. A corollary: When we do use formulas it will be important to understand them, as best we can, in terms of common sense and experience. Either way, practice makes the process easier, and one of the great benefits of studying physics is that we get the opportunity to apply common sense in situations where we can get feedback by experimentally testing our thinking. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&* ********************************************* Question: `q007. Two automobiles are traveling up a long hill with an steepness that doesn't change until the top, which is very far away, is reached. One automobile is moving twice as fast as the other. At the instant the faster automobile overtakes the slower their drivers both take them out of gear and they coast until they stop. Which automobile will take longer to come to a stop? Will that automobile require about twice as long to stop, more than twice as long or less than twice as long? Which automobile will have the greater average coasting velocity? Will its average coasting velocity by twice as great as the other, more than twice as great or less than twice as great? Will the distance traveled by the faster automobile be equal to that of the slower, twice that of the slower or more than twice that of the slower? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: Well the car that is moving twice as fast has twice force behind it and twice the energy going into the system. Assuming that both automobiles are identical and the weight of the two drivers are equal, then the car moving twice as fast will keep on rolling even after the slower vehicle grinds to a halt when all that energy gets spent on friction with the roadway and air resistance. I want to say that it will take about twice as long (in terms of time) to stop the higher speed coasting automobile. The faster automobile will have the greater average coasting velocity, should be very close to exactly twice as fast. As far as distance, the faster car should go about twice as far. confidence rating #$&* 2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.............................................
Given Solution: `aIt turns out that, neglecting air resistance, since the slope is the same for both, both automobiles will change velocity at the same rate. So in this case the second would require exactly twice as long. If you include air resistance the faster car experiences more so it actually takes a bit less than twice as long as the slower. For the same reasons as before, and because velocity would change at a constant rate (neglecting air resistance) it would be exactly twice as great if air resistance is neglected. Interestingly if it takes twice as much time and the average velocity is twice as great the faster car travels four times as far. If there is air resistance then it slows the faster car down more at the beginning than at the end and the average velocity will be a bit less than twice as great and the coasting distance less than four times as far. STUDENT COMMENT: I do not understand why the car would go four times as far as the slower car. INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE: The faster car takes twice as long to come to rest, and have twice the average velocity. If the car traveled at the same average velocity for twice as long it would go twice as far. If it traveled at twice the average velocity for the same length of time it would go twice as far. However it travels at twice the average velocity for twice as long, so it goes four times as far. STUDENT COMMENT: it’s hard to know this stuff without having first discussed it in notes or read it in the book, or have an equation handy. I guess this will all come with the class. INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE One purpose of this and similar exercises is to get students into the habit of thinking for themselves, as opposed to imitating what they see done in a textbook. You're doing some good thinking. When you get to the text and other materials, ideally you'll be better prepared to understand them as a result of this process. This works better for some students than others, but it's beneficial to just about everyone. STUDENT COMMENT I understand, it seems as though it would be easier if there were formulas to apply. I used a little common sense on all but the last one. Reading the responses I somewhat understand the last one. ?????The problem doesn’t indicate the vehicle travels twice the average velocity for twice as long. Should I have known that by reading the problem or should that have become clear to me after working it some????? INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE You did know these things when you thought about the problem. You concluded that the automobile would take twice as long to come to rest, and that it would have twice the coasting velocity. You just didn't put the two conclusions together (don't feel badly; very few students do, and most don't get as close as you did). You should now see how your two correct conclusions, when put together using common sense, lead to the final conclusion that the second automobile travels four times as far. No formula is necessary to do this. In fact if students are given a formula, nearly all will go ahead and use it without ever thinking about or understanding what is going on. In this course we tend to develop an idea first, and then summarize the idea with one or more formulas. Once we've formulated a concept, the formula gives us a condensed expression of our understanding. The formula then becomes a means of remembering the ideas it represents, and gives us a tool to probe even more deeply into the relationships it embodies. There are exceptions in which we start with a formula, but usually by the time we get to the formula we will understand, at least to some extent, what it's about. I suppose this could be put succinctly as 'think before formulating'. STUDENT COMMENT I feel that I did decent on the problem, but I am the student that likes to have formulas. Your insight has opened my eyes to a different way of looking at this problem. I like the comment “Think before Formulate” INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE Your solution was indeed well thought out. I should probably add another comment: 'Think after formulating.' Formulas are essential, but can't be applied reliably without the thinking, which should come first and last. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): Guess I should have noticed that the vehicle was traveling twice as fast and took twice as long that is would go four times farther instead of twice as far. v = Δd / Δt 2 = Δd / 2 Δd = 4 ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&* 3 ********************************************* Question: `q008. When a 100 lb person hangs from a certain bungee cord, the cord stretches by 5 feet beyond its initial unstretched length. When a person weighing 150 lbs hangs from the same cord, the cord is stretched by 9 feet beyond its initial unstretched length. When a person weighing 200 lbs hangs from the same cord, the cord is stretched by 12 feet beyond its initial unstretched length. Based on these figures, would you expect that a person of weight 125 lbs would stretch the cord more or less than 7 feet beyond its initial unstretched length? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: So basically we have list of valid weights (let's call that x) versus bungee length displacement (we'll call that f(x)). There is a valid function that represents this data, we just don't know it yet. x | f(x) -------------- 100 | 5 125 | ? 150 | 9 200 | 12 I might sound sort of smart sometimes, but trust me: I am no mathematical genius, more of an artist actually. I love math, I really do, but I honestly do not know how quadratic regressions are formulated. I know the calculator is good at it---like instant good. So let's punch it into the machine and we get: f(x)=(−0.0002)(x^2) + 0.13x − 6 Cool right!? It's a magic function that hits known points in the set { (x,y) | (100, 5), (150, 9), (200, 12) }. Very nice. Let's just prove it very fast. f(x) =(−0.0002)(x^2) + 0.13x − 6 f(100) =(−0.0002)(100^2) + 0.13(100) − 6 =5 f(150) =(−0.0002)(150^2) + 0.13(150) − 6 =9 f(200) =(−0.0002)(200^2) + 0.13(200) − 6 =12 Now it isn't perfect, but it represents the best quadratic function to fit the known data. From that we can formulate a guess to f(125).
.............................................
Given Solution: `aFrom 100 lbs to 150 lbs the stretch increased by 4 feet, from 150 lbs to 200 lbs the increase was only 3 feet. Thus it appears that at least in the 100 lb - 200 lb rands each additional pound results in less increase in length than the last and that there would be more increase between 100 lb and 125 lb than between 125 lb and 150 lb. This leads to the conclusion that the stretch for 125 lb would be more than halfway from 5 ft to 9 ft, or more than 7 ft. A graph of stretch vs. weight would visually reveal the nature of the nonlinearity of this graph and would also show that the stretch at 125 lb must be more than 7 feet (the graph would be concave downward, or increasing at a decreasing rate, so the midway stretch would be higher than expected by a linear approximation). STUDENT COMMENT I feel like I nailed this one. Probably just didn’t state things very clearly. INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE You explanation was very good. Remember that I get to refine my statements, semester after semester, year after year. You get one shot and you don't have time to hone it to perfection (not to say that my explanations ever achieve that level). &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): A few lessons of regression could serve me wiser one day, for what that's worth. Somebody has to write the program that makes the hard work easier. ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&* ********************************************* Question: `q009. When given a push of 10 pounds, with the push maintained through a distance of 4 feet, a certain ice skater can coast without further effort across level ice for a distance of 30 feet. When given a push of 20 pounds (double the previous push) through the same distance, the skater will be able to coast twice as far, a distance of 60 feet. When given a push of 10 pounds for a distance of 8 feet (twice the previous distance) the skater will again coast a distance of 60 feet. The same skater is now accelerated by a sort of a slingshot consisting of a bungee-type cord slung between two posts in the ice. The cord, as one might expect, exerts greater and greater force as it is pulled back further and further. Assume that the force increases in direct proportion to pullback (ie.g., twice the pullback implies twice the force). When the skater is pulled back 4 feet and released, she travels 20 feet. When she is pulled back 8 feet and released, will she be expected to travel twice as far, more than twice as far or less than twice as far as when she was pulled back 4 feet? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: When pushed 4 feet at 10 pounds the skater goes 30 feet. When pushed 4 feet at 20 pounds the skater goes 60 feet. When pushed 8 feet at 10 pounds the skater goes 60 feet. When pulled back 4 feet the skater travels 20 feet. If the force is doubled at twice the distance the force is applied, it may travel 80 feet for an 8 foot pull back. I also want to say that pulling the person back means you are losing forward ground. So, 80 feet minus the 8 foot pull back is an advance of 72 feet.
.............................................
Given Solution: `aThe distance through which the force acts will be twice as great, which alone would double the distance; because of the doubled pullback and the linear proportionality relationship for the force the average force is also twice as great, which alone would double the distance. So we have to double the doubling; she will go 4 times as far STUDENT COMMENT: I do not understand the linear proportionality relationship for the force. If the skater is pulled back an extra four feet, does that mean that the amount of pounds propelling her is also doubled? INSTRUCTOR COMMENT: That is so. However the force propelling her isn't the only thing that influences how far she slides. The distance through which the force is applied is also a factor. Doubling the force alone would double the sliding distance. Doubling the distance through which the force is applied would double the sliding distane. Doubling both the applied force and the distance through which it is applied quadruples the sliding distance. ********************************************* Question: `q010. Two identical light bulbs are placed at the centers of large and identically frosted glass spheres, one of diameter 1 foot and the other of diameter 2 feet. To a moth seeking light from half a mile away, unable to distinguish the difference in size between the spheres, will the larger sphere appear brighter, dimmer or of the same brightness as the first? To a small moth walking on the surface of the spheres, able to detect from there only the light coming from 1 square inch of the sphere, will the second sphere appear to have the same brightness as the first, twice the brightness of the first, half the brightness of the first, more than twice the brightness of the first, or less than half the brightness of the first? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: Wow. I have no reason to suspect anything at all. I would have to observe this to try to analyze the effect. My best guess would be that it would be dimmer unless you apply a brighter flame to diffuse. Wow. confidence rating #$&* 1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.............................................
Given Solution: `aBoth bulbs send out the same energy per second. The surface of the second bulb will indeed be dimmer than the first, as we will see below. However the same total energy per second reaches the eye (identically frosted bulbs will dissipate the same percent of the bulb energy) and from a great distance you can't tell the difference in size, so both will appear the same. The second sphere, while not as bright at its surface because it has proportionally more area, does have the extra area, and that exactly compensates for the difference in brightness. Specifically the brightness at the surface will be 1/4 as great (twice the radius implies 4 times the area which results in 1/4 the illumination at the surface) but there will be 4 times the surface area. Just as a 2' x 2' square has four times the area of a 1' x 1' square, a sphere with twice the diameter will have four times the surface area and will appear 1 / 4 as bright at its surface. Putting it another way, the second sphere distributes the intensity over four times the area, so the light on 1 square inch has only 1 / 4 the illumination. STUDENT COMMENT: I understand the first part of the problem about the distances. But the second part really confuses me. Looking straight down from the top of the spheres, the bulb is the same intensity and the frosted glass is exactly the same, so why would it seem dimmer? I would think that if a person was standing in front of the spheres, that person would be able to tell a difference, but not extremely close. INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE: Imagine a light bulb inside a frosted glass lamp of typical size. Imagine it outside on a dark night. If you put your eye next to the glass, the light will be bright. Not as bright as if you put your eye right next to the bulb, but certainly bright. The power of the bulb is spread out over the lamp, but the lamp doesn't have that large an area so you detect quite a bit of light. If you put the same bulb inside a stadium with a frosted glass dome over it, and put your eye next to the glass on a dark night, with just the bulb lit, you won't detect much illumination. The power of the bulb is distributed over a much greater area than that of the lamp, and you detect much less light. STUDENT COMMENT: I also didn’t get the second part of the question. I still don’t really see where the ¼ comes from. INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE: First you should address the explanation given in the problem: 'Just as a 2' x 2' square has four times the area of a 1' x 1' square, a sphere with twice the diameter will have four times the surface area and will appear 1 / 4 as bright at its surface. Putting it another way, the second sphere distributes the intensity over four times the area, so the light on 1 square inch has only 1 / 4 the illumination. ' Do you understand this explanation? If not, what do you understand about it and what don't you understand? This simple image of a 2x2 square being covered by four 1x1 squares is the most basic reason the larger sphere has four time the area of the smaller. There is, however, an alternative explanation in terms of formulas: The surface area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2. If r is doubled, r^2 increases by factor 2^2 = 4. So a sphere with double the radius has four time the area. If the same quantity is spread out over the larger sphere, it will be 1/4 as dense on the surface. STUDENT COMMENT: I also have no clue why the extra area doesn’t take away some brightness. INSTRUCTOR RESPONSE: All the light produced by the bulb is passing through either of the spheres. From a distance you see all the light, whichever sphere you're looking at; you see just as much light when looking at one as when looking at the other. From a distance you can't tell whether you're looking at the sphere with larger area but less intensity at its surface, or the sphere with lesser area and greater intensity at its surface. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): Wow. I'm still just like wow. That's a fantastic question. Just as I suspected, it probably is dimmer. Just not enough to notice. That's why I said it would be worth testing.
.............................................
Given Solution: Since the temperature is the same when a little of the ice is melted as when most of it is melted, melting takes place at this temperature, which is 0 Celsius. The time required to melt the ice is greater than any of the other times so melting at 0 C takes the most energy. Since we don't know how much ice remains unmelted before the final minute, it is impossible to distinguish between the other two quantities, but it turns out that it takes less energy to increase the temperature of ice than of liquid water. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): I was wrong about heating water vs heating ice, but my presumption about transforming the matter was more in line with reality. ********************************************* Question: `q012. Suppose you are in the center of a long, narrow swimming pool (e.g., a lap pool). Two friends with kickboards, one at either end of the pool, are using them to push waves in your direction. Their pushes are synchronized, and the crests of the waves are six feet apart as they travel toward you, with a 'valley' between each pair of crests. Since your friends are at equal distances from you the crests from both directions always reach you at the same instant, so every time the crests reach you the waves combine to create a larger crest. Similarly when the valleys meet you experience a larger valley, and as a result you bob up and down further than you would if just one person was pushing waves at you. Now if you move a bit closer to one end of the pool the peak from that end will reach you a bit earlier, and the peak from the other end will reach you a little later. So the peaks won't quite be reaching you simultaneously, nor will the valleys, and you won't bob up and down as much. If you move far enough, in fact, the peak from one end will reach you at the same time as the valley from the other end and the peak will 'fll in' the valley, with the result that you won't bob up and down very much. If the peaks of the approaching waves are each 6 inches high, how far would you expect to bob up and down when you are at the center point? How far would you have to move toward one end or the other in order for peaks to meet valleys, placing you in relatively calm water? YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Your solution: No idea. I bet it there may be a trigonometric relationship that quantifies this easily. I want to guess that if the waves are 6 inches high, then you may travel about a maximum of 6 inches; combined it would be 12 inches. I suppose that the wave frequency would be needed to determine where the trough of the wave is. It would be 1/2 of the wavelength of one of the waves to meet at one wave's trough. But I'm not so sure that you'll be safe at just any trough, as the next wave may have some energy ready to displace. confidence rating #$&* 1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.............................................
Given Solution: `aIf the two 6-inch peaks meet and reinforce one another completely, the height of the 'combined' peak will be 6 in + 6 in = 12 in. If for example you move 3 ft closer to one end you move 3 ft further from the other and peaks, which are 6 ft apart, will still be meeting peaks. [ Think of it this way: If you move 3 ft closer to one end you move 3 ft further from the other. This shifts your relative position to the two waves by 6 feet (3 feet closer to the one you're moving toward, 3 feet further from the other). So if you were meeting peaks at the original position, someone at your new position would at the same time be meeting valleys, with two peaks closing in from opposite directions. A short time later the two peaks would meet at that point. ] However if you move 1.5 ft the net 'shift' will be 3 ft and peaks will be meeting valleys so you will be in the calmest water. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Self-critique (if necessary): So I see what you did about the wavelength issue. You just went out to a macro level to examine the environment as a whole. That gave you the next best thing, an assurance that the point along the path should be a trough. Very nice. I was about there with the solution. ------------------------------------------------ Self-critique rating #$&*"