The equation must be in terms of v_0 (initial velocity), theta (angle of launch), and g (gravity).
Thanks in advanceHow to I determine an equation for the maximum vertical position of an object?
Basically, you're asking for the derivation of the formula for maximum height of an object in two dimensional motion. Keep in mind that gravity acts as the y-component in motion in two dimensions. Instead of v_0, I'm going to use vi.
Start off with the following formulas:
vf = vi + at
0 = vi*sin(胃) - g*t
t = (vi*sin(胃)) / g
Now substitute these values into the formula for final position:
h = (vi*sin(胃)) * ((vi*sin(胃)) / g) - (g / 2) * ((vi*sin(胃)) / g)虏
h = (vi虏 * sin虏胃) / 2g
Now consider the horizontal (x) component of the object's motion:
R = (vi*cos(胃)) * 2t = (vi*cos(胃)) * ((2*vi*sin(胃)) / g)
R = (2*vi虏*cos(胃)*sin(胃)) / g
Using a trigonometric identity, the final answer is:
R = (vi虏 * sin(2胃)) / g
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Find the volume of the object and its density ?
a metal object is suspended from a spring scale. the scale reads 921 N when the object is suspended in air, and 717 N when the object is completely submerged in water. The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2. Find the volume of the object and its density ?Find the volume of the object and its density ?
f = ma
m = f/a = 921 / 9.8 = 94 kg (m = mass)
the force lifting the object equal to the waight of a volume of water same as the volume of the object
as for the force lifting the object
= 921 - 717 = 204N
the wight of the water 204/9.8 = 20.81 Kg
water density = 1000 kg/m^3 at 4Co
volume of the water = mass / density
= 20.81 / 1000 = 0.0208 m^3
which is the same as the volume of the object
the density of the object = mass / volume
= 94 / 0.0208 = 4519.23 kg / m^3
f = ma
m = f/a = 921 / 9.8 = 94 kg (m = mass)
the force lifting the object equal to the waight of a volume of water same as the volume of the object
as for the force lifting the object
= 921 - 717 = 204N
the wight of the water 204/9.8 = 20.81 Kg
water density = 1000 kg/m^3 at 4Co
volume of the water = mass / density
= 20.81 / 1000 = 0.0208 m^3
which is the same as the volume of the object
the density of the object = mass / volume
= 94 / 0.0208 = 4519.23 kg / m^3
How to make the background blurr when taking a picture of an object with a Nikon D50 camera?
Use Aperture priority mode and dial the smallest f number you can,either using the ring on your lens,(if it has one ),or the command dial on the right hand side of the body,How to make the background blurr when taking a picture of an object with a Nikon D50 camera?
Select 'portrait' mode on the preset mode. keep clicking.How to make the background blurr when taking a picture of an object with a Nikon D50 camera?
Use a wide aperture setting, small F stop number. The F number is got by dividing the focal length by the aperture size. So a 50 mm lens with an F stop setting of 3.4 will have an aperture of 14.7 mm. Wide apertures reduce depth of field (less of scene is in focus).
setting the lowest apeture number is the right first step... but if the lens your using has a high f-stop, then you have to do a little bit more... if your using a high f-stop lens then the first thing you need to do is turn off the autofocus. The auto focus on a d50 will focus on your subject just fine... the problem is that means you have a lot of stuff going on behind the subject that will still be in focus...
You have to understand that every lens has a band in which things will be in focus... the higher the f-stop the wider that band of in focus is... the lower the number the more narrow the band... the problem is your cameras auto-focus puts your subject somewhere near the middle to front of that band... if you want the back ground blurry you need to make sure the subject is near the back of the band. If you had a camera with a depth of field preview you could simply hold it down when you focused and you would know just how closely you could focus and still have your subject in focus and the background out of focus... the d50 doesn't have that so you need to just do some trial and error. with the camera on manual focus, focus on something 1 foot in front of the subject and take a shot... then focus on something 1.5 feet in front and take a shot... repeat that focusing on something a little closer each time and then look at the results.... you'll find that some of the ones will have the subject in focus even though it looked blurry in the view finder... now you can get more blur in the background without having to buy more expensive fast glass.
he above advice is all valid.
another way would be to do it using the software method.
Google 'Photoshop tutorials' should lead you to sites explaining this method.
As the other two have said put the camera in A mode and scroll through to get the smallest aperture number. Something like f/3.5 f/4 or f/5.6.
In addition - zoom all the way in and walk back to fit it in.
Its a bit wordy, but have a quick look at: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutoria鈥?/a>
--- Zoom in all the way
--- Open the aperture wide
--- Get close to your subject
Blurred backgrounds may not be possible with wide-angle lenses even if you do the above.
Best effect is with 70mm and longer lenses.
For more information and a handy DOF calculator, go here:
http://www.dofmaster.com
Hope this helps.
V
A lens with a larger aperture will you get photographs like the one I've linked to below.
Aperture size is defined by a number. A large aperture would have a low number such as 1.8.
The more zoom you have, and larger the aperture, the more blurred the background will be.
With the Nikon D50, I would recommend getting a Nikon 50mm 1.8. It will allow you to take photographs in low light without a flash, and give you the blur effect you desire. (Yahoo link below for 50mm info)
Other contributers are talking about depth of field, which are perfectly valid answers of course, but there are other types of blur.
Panning your shot on a moving subject will blur the backgound and leave the subject sharp, if done properly (needs practice). This is called motion blur and can add 'speed' to a picture.
Another type of motion blur if your camera allows it is rear curtain flash, with this technique you pan as before, but just before the rear curtain of the shutter closes (hence the name) the flash fires, freezing and perfectly exposing the foreground, anything within range of the flash. Will the built in flash this will only be about 5 or 6 feet, but with a more powerful flash an area several tens of feet can be illuminated.
In both these techniques a slowish shutter speed is used 1/8 of a second or so, or even slower with practice.
Chris
Select 'portrait' mode on the preset mode. keep clicking.How to make the background blurr when taking a picture of an object with a Nikon D50 camera?
Use a wide aperture setting, small F stop number. The F number is got by dividing the focal length by the aperture size. So a 50 mm lens with an F stop setting of 3.4 will have an aperture of 14.7 mm. Wide apertures reduce depth of field (less of scene is in focus).
setting the lowest apeture number is the right first step... but if the lens your using has a high f-stop, then you have to do a little bit more... if your using a high f-stop lens then the first thing you need to do is turn off the autofocus. The auto focus on a d50 will focus on your subject just fine... the problem is that means you have a lot of stuff going on behind the subject that will still be in focus...
You have to understand that every lens has a band in which things will be in focus... the higher the f-stop the wider that band of in focus is... the lower the number the more narrow the band... the problem is your cameras auto-focus puts your subject somewhere near the middle to front of that band... if you want the back ground blurry you need to make sure the subject is near the back of the band. If you had a camera with a depth of field preview you could simply hold it down when you focused and you would know just how closely you could focus and still have your subject in focus and the background out of focus... the d50 doesn't have that so you need to just do some trial and error. with the camera on manual focus, focus on something 1 foot in front of the subject and take a shot... then focus on something 1.5 feet in front and take a shot... repeat that focusing on something a little closer each time and then look at the results.... you'll find that some of the ones will have the subject in focus even though it looked blurry in the view finder... now you can get more blur in the background without having to buy more expensive fast glass.
he above advice is all valid.
another way would be to do it using the software method.
Google 'Photoshop tutorials' should lead you to sites explaining this method.
As the other two have said put the camera in A mode and scroll through to get the smallest aperture number. Something like f/3.5 f/4 or f/5.6.
In addition - zoom all the way in and walk back to fit it in.
Its a bit wordy, but have a quick look at: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutoria鈥?/a>
--- Zoom in all the way
--- Open the aperture wide
--- Get close to your subject
Blurred backgrounds may not be possible with wide-angle lenses even if you do the above.
Best effect is with 70mm and longer lenses.
For more information and a handy DOF calculator, go here:
http://www.dofmaster.com
Hope this helps.
V
A lens with a larger aperture will you get photographs like the one I've linked to below.
Aperture size is defined by a number. A large aperture would have a low number such as 1.8.
The more zoom you have, and larger the aperture, the more blurred the background will be.
With the Nikon D50, I would recommend getting a Nikon 50mm 1.8. It will allow you to take photographs in low light without a flash, and give you the blur effect you desire. (Yahoo link below for 50mm info)
Other contributers are talking about depth of field, which are perfectly valid answers of course, but there are other types of blur.
Panning your shot on a moving subject will blur the backgound and leave the subject sharp, if done properly (needs practice). This is called motion blur and can add 'speed' to a picture.
Another type of motion blur if your camera allows it is rear curtain flash, with this technique you pan as before, but just before the rear curtain of the shutter closes (hence the name) the flash fires, freezing and perfectly exposing the foreground, anything within range of the flash. Will the built in flash this will only be about 5 or 6 feet, but with a more powerful flash an area several tens of feet can be illuminated.
In both these techniques a slowish shutter speed is used 1/8 of a second or so, or even slower with practice.
Chris
Can light potentially move an object physically?
for example in space, objects are virtually weightless i am wondering if light, cud transfer its energy into another object and move it.Can light potentially move an object physically?
Yes Radiation Pressure of Light can be used to move Objects, According to Einstein Relation E = pc Photons Have a Momentum so Light Reflecting off a Surface Generate a Small amount of Radiation Pressure, This Method is Proposed to use on Solar Sails.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_SailCan light potentially move an object physically?
Yes it can it can be absorbed by an object which then gains its momentum, it is the same principle by which solar sails work.
If you think about it it must transfer momentum as the light has a relativistic momentum, if it was absorbed and the absorber didn't move momentum would not be conserved which is a central principle of physics.
Light is composed of photons that have a mass and a momentum. So yes it can.
Actually, the famous Compton experience showed that when light in incident on an electron is moves it and loses a part of its energy.
Yes, it can. A solar sail could accelerate a spacecraft to extreme velocity, without using any propellant at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
Absolutely. Check out this link.
yes they can as they are a form of energy
A laser might work.
light is not matter. so no
Yes Radiation Pressure of Light can be used to move Objects, According to Einstein Relation E = pc Photons Have a Momentum so Light Reflecting off a Surface Generate a Small amount of Radiation Pressure, This Method is Proposed to use on Solar Sails.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_SailCan light potentially move an object physically?
Yes it can it can be absorbed by an object which then gains its momentum, it is the same principle by which solar sails work.
If you think about it it must transfer momentum as the light has a relativistic momentum, if it was absorbed and the absorber didn't move momentum would not be conserved which is a central principle of physics.
Light is composed of photons that have a mass and a momentum. So yes it can.
Actually, the famous Compton experience showed that when light in incident on an electron is moves it and loses a part of its energy.
Yes, it can. A solar sail could accelerate a spacecraft to extreme velocity, without using any propellant at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail
Absolutely. Check out this link.
yes they can as they are a form of energy
A laser might work.
light is not matter. so no
How do you make a dog throw up after eating a foreign object?
my 80 pound chocolate lab ate one of my daughters cotton pads. we tried the hydrogen peroxide method of giving him about 2 tablespoons, and it's been about.. 15 minutes. I'm reluctant to give him anymore.. so is there any other method we can use to try and get it out ASAP??
thanks for the help!!!How do you make a dog throw up after eating a foreign object?
My sister's friend's dog ate and swallowed a whole sock once and they had to take him to the vet and have it surgically removed. It was a very expensive surgery. Hopefully he won't need surgery but please keep the cotton pads away from his reach from now on.How do you make a dog throw up after eating a foreign object?
The does was too small. It' s one teaspoon of Hydrogen Peroxide per 10 pounds of body weight. Then you walk the dog. If he hasn't vomited after 15 minutes, try it once more.
In a dog this large, it's likely that your dog will pass it if you can't get him to throw it up. But keep an eye on him and if anything seems different or wrong about him, get him to the vet.
ETA: You can't use this in every case. If the dog had eaten something sharp or caustic, you wouldn't want him to try to throw it up--you'd go straight to the emergency vet. Don't want anyone to think this is a universal solution!
Did he eat it whole? If it's in pieces it will go through, if it's whole you have a problem. With peroxide you give it until the dog throws up, it's not good to stop and leave the peroxide in the stomach. Once you have began you need to follow through.
You can give him one more dose of the same size. Emergency clinics have other drugs they can administer to induce vomiting,
Give him 2 tablespoons at a time and walk him for 1 min then give him more till he upchucks..
It's pretty simple...
peroxide will do the jobfacial skin care facial wrinkles
thanks for the help!!!How do you make a dog throw up after eating a foreign object?
My sister's friend's dog ate and swallowed a whole sock once and they had to take him to the vet and have it surgically removed. It was a very expensive surgery. Hopefully he won't need surgery but please keep the cotton pads away from his reach from now on.How do you make a dog throw up after eating a foreign object?
The does was too small. It' s one teaspoon of Hydrogen Peroxide per 10 pounds of body weight. Then you walk the dog. If he hasn't vomited after 15 minutes, try it once more.
In a dog this large, it's likely that your dog will pass it if you can't get him to throw it up. But keep an eye on him and if anything seems different or wrong about him, get him to the vet.
ETA: You can't use this in every case. If the dog had eaten something sharp or caustic, you wouldn't want him to try to throw it up--you'd go straight to the emergency vet. Don't want anyone to think this is a universal solution!
Did he eat it whole? If it's in pieces it will go through, if it's whole you have a problem. With peroxide you give it until the dog throws up, it's not good to stop and leave the peroxide in the stomach. Once you have began you need to follow through.
You can give him one more dose of the same size. Emergency clinics have other drugs they can administer to induce vomiting,
Give him 2 tablespoons at a time and walk him for 1 min then give him more till he upchucks..
It's pretty simple...
peroxide will do the job
What is the power of a motor that can lift a 10kg object 12 m with a constant speed of .5m/s?
It's a physics questions. Here are the multiple choice possible answers. I have no idea how to do this.
A) 4.09 Watts
B)24.16 Watts
C) 49.05 Watts
D) 2.35 kiloWattsWhat is the power of a motor that can lift a 10kg object 12 m with a constant speed of .5m/s?
And the answer is ... C...
Power = Force(Distance)/Time
Force = 10 kg x 9.8 m/s*2
Distance = 12 m
Time = Distance/Speed = 24 sec
A) 4.09 Watts
B)24.16 Watts
C) 49.05 Watts
D) 2.35 kiloWattsWhat is the power of a motor that can lift a 10kg object 12 m with a constant speed of .5m/s?
And the answer is ... C...
Power = Force(Distance)/Time
Force = 10 kg x 9.8 m/s*2
Distance = 12 m
Time = Distance/Speed = 24 sec
What would REALLY happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable object?
Chuck Norris dies.
No seriously, that is what would happen.
Do not question the GM.
Regards,
ArmusWhat would REALLY happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable object?
Lightbringer is right. this question is just a semantic game and has no meaning. Like if god is omnipotent can he make a rock that he can't move. it's just a word game like having 2 cubes each heavier than the other. They have no accordance with reality.What would REALLY happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable object?
everything would disappear
well this happened once when chuck norris was doing a roundhouse kick and he kicked so fast that he actually roundhouse kicked himself in the face...
This even was known as the big bang...
It is also due to this that scientists are able to approximate the age of the universe.. they don't know exactly how old it is because Chuck Norris wanted to keep them guessing.
If there was an imovalble wall the force would not be able to travel any further at the same velocity.
For a force to move you have to give it room!
easy answer.Tough question.
The irresistable force would lose no energy to the immovable object. An eternal stand-off.
Damage
Immovable object and unstoppable force are actually ill-defined terms here. Let's clear the question up a bit.
An immovable object is more accurately defined as a mass with infinite inertia. Since inertia varies with mass as far as we know, this would more simply be an infinite mass.
An unstoppable force could be a few different things, but the questions seems to be referring to two objects colliding, so we'll go with that. An unstoppable force would also be an object with infinite inertia, but it would be in motion. This means that the object can be said to have infinite momentum, meaning that either the mass or velocity (or both, I suppose) could be infinite. Any mass moving at infinite velocity would have infinite momentum, as would an infinite mass travelling at any velocity.
In a collision, momentum is important. Momentum is what gets transfered between the objects (well, it's really kinetic energy). Because we are dealing with infinites, however, the problem is a little muddy. Would an infinite force be able to move an infinite mass? This kind of question is at the core of what you're asking here. Dealing in infinites would seem to be one way of asking an absolute question, but it turns out to be exactly the opposite. With that in mind, here we go.
First off, let's define the kind of collision we're going to have. An elastic collision is one in which kinetic energy is transfered completely in the collision. An inelastic collision is one in which some or all of the kinetic energy is transfered to some other form of energy. All collisions that we know of are inelastic to some degree. The lost kinetic energy manifests itself as sound and light, usually.
So what would this collision be like? That's an interesting question.
In the case of a perfectly elastic collision, two possibilities emerge. In one, all of the momentum from the moving object is transfered to the object at rest. In essence, the immovable object and unstoppable force actually switch roles! The other possibility is that the unstoppable force is simply deflected, retaining its original momentum and remaining the unstoppable (but not undivertable) force.
In the case of a perfectly inelastic collision, all of the kinetic energy would be released. This would be an infinite amount of energy, and so the universe would be, well, probably obliterated. However, the Immovable object would be the winner in this case.
A third option arises, in which only some of the kinetic energy is transfered. In this case, since we are dealing with an infinite amount of energy, it is possible that an infinite amount of momentum is transfered to the object at rest, while an infinite amount is also released. In this case, the object at rest, with infinite momentum trasnfered to it, might actually move, while the object in motion would retain infinite momentum and either be deflected or travel along with the now moving immovable object, while an infinite amount would also be released. Really, an combination of these three events could happen, since we have an infinite amount of energy to play with.
So the answer is that either or neither one could conceivably win, and the fate of the very universe could be put in jeopardy in the process.
This answer completely ignores the role that the shape and composition of the objects might be. A very small unstoppable force might just tunnel through the immovable object, leaving no clear winner.
In order to determine what would REALLY happen, you need to REALLY define your units. Unstoppable force? You mean an infinite amount of energy? Doesn't exist. Immoveable object? You mean infinite mass? Doesn't exist.
Now, lets substitute:
';What would really happen if something that doesn't exist met something that doesn't really exist?'; Well, it can't happen, because neither exist, so obviously, the answer to your problems is ';Nothing';.
However, if we enter the metaphysical, and conjecture that we are imagining these forces then what would really happen would be whatever you imagined. SO, have fun with that!
it would bounce off and go in a new direction
One would have to give.
everything is movable therefore the force would win.
If a large force is everted on an unmoveable object then it will change shape.
the unstopable force would shatter the object. its called theoretical physics so prove me wrong
Are there such things as unstoppable forces and immoveable objects?
What usually happens - the former would probably put a ticket or a wheel clamp on the latter.
I think it's called sumo wrestling
I imagine they would both shatter or break in some way.
edit: NOTHING CAN STOP THE BLOB!
The flaw is with your initial assumptions.
If the force is unstoppable, then *everything* would be moved by it - therefore you could not have an immovable object
If the object is immovable, then all forces would be stopped by it - therefore you cannot have an unstoppable force.
Whichever you pick - the other cannot exist.
A bit like having two cubes, both of which are heavier than the other. It just doesn't work.
Nothing. Could never happen in the real world.
I imagine that they would ';merge'; through each other.
No seriously, that is what would happen.
Do not question the GM.
Regards,
ArmusWhat would REALLY happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable object?
Lightbringer is right. this question is just a semantic game and has no meaning. Like if god is omnipotent can he make a rock that he can't move. it's just a word game like having 2 cubes each heavier than the other. They have no accordance with reality.What would REALLY happen if an unstoppable force met an immoveable object?
everything would disappear
well this happened once when chuck norris was doing a roundhouse kick and he kicked so fast that he actually roundhouse kicked himself in the face...
This even was known as the big bang...
It is also due to this that scientists are able to approximate the age of the universe.. they don't know exactly how old it is because Chuck Norris wanted to keep them guessing.
If there was an imovalble wall the force would not be able to travel any further at the same velocity.
For a force to move you have to give it room!
easy answer.Tough question.
The irresistable force would lose no energy to the immovable object. An eternal stand-off.
Damage
Immovable object and unstoppable force are actually ill-defined terms here. Let's clear the question up a bit.
An immovable object is more accurately defined as a mass with infinite inertia. Since inertia varies with mass as far as we know, this would more simply be an infinite mass.
An unstoppable force could be a few different things, but the questions seems to be referring to two objects colliding, so we'll go with that. An unstoppable force would also be an object with infinite inertia, but it would be in motion. This means that the object can be said to have infinite momentum, meaning that either the mass or velocity (or both, I suppose) could be infinite. Any mass moving at infinite velocity would have infinite momentum, as would an infinite mass travelling at any velocity.
In a collision, momentum is important. Momentum is what gets transfered between the objects (well, it's really kinetic energy). Because we are dealing with infinites, however, the problem is a little muddy. Would an infinite force be able to move an infinite mass? This kind of question is at the core of what you're asking here. Dealing in infinites would seem to be one way of asking an absolute question, but it turns out to be exactly the opposite. With that in mind, here we go.
First off, let's define the kind of collision we're going to have. An elastic collision is one in which kinetic energy is transfered completely in the collision. An inelastic collision is one in which some or all of the kinetic energy is transfered to some other form of energy. All collisions that we know of are inelastic to some degree. The lost kinetic energy manifests itself as sound and light, usually.
So what would this collision be like? That's an interesting question.
In the case of a perfectly elastic collision, two possibilities emerge. In one, all of the momentum from the moving object is transfered to the object at rest. In essence, the immovable object and unstoppable force actually switch roles! The other possibility is that the unstoppable force is simply deflected, retaining its original momentum and remaining the unstoppable (but not undivertable) force.
In the case of a perfectly inelastic collision, all of the kinetic energy would be released. This would be an infinite amount of energy, and so the universe would be, well, probably obliterated. However, the Immovable object would be the winner in this case.
A third option arises, in which only some of the kinetic energy is transfered. In this case, since we are dealing with an infinite amount of energy, it is possible that an infinite amount of momentum is transfered to the object at rest, while an infinite amount is also released. In this case, the object at rest, with infinite momentum trasnfered to it, might actually move, while the object in motion would retain infinite momentum and either be deflected or travel along with the now moving immovable object, while an infinite amount would also be released. Really, an combination of these three events could happen, since we have an infinite amount of energy to play with.
So the answer is that either or neither one could conceivably win, and the fate of the very universe could be put in jeopardy in the process.
This answer completely ignores the role that the shape and composition of the objects might be. A very small unstoppable force might just tunnel through the immovable object, leaving no clear winner.
In order to determine what would REALLY happen, you need to REALLY define your units. Unstoppable force? You mean an infinite amount of energy? Doesn't exist. Immoveable object? You mean infinite mass? Doesn't exist.
Now, lets substitute:
';What would really happen if something that doesn't exist met something that doesn't really exist?'; Well, it can't happen, because neither exist, so obviously, the answer to your problems is ';Nothing';.
However, if we enter the metaphysical, and conjecture that we are imagining these forces then what would really happen would be whatever you imagined. SO, have fun with that!
it would bounce off and go in a new direction
One would have to give.
everything is movable therefore the force would win.
If a large force is everted on an unmoveable object then it will change shape.
the unstopable force would shatter the object. its called theoretical physics so prove me wrong
Are there such things as unstoppable forces and immoveable objects?
What usually happens - the former would probably put a ticket or a wheel clamp on the latter.
I think it's called sumo wrestling
I imagine they would both shatter or break in some way.
edit: NOTHING CAN STOP THE BLOB!
The flaw is with your initial assumptions.
If the force is unstoppable, then *everything* would be moved by it - therefore you could not have an immovable object
If the object is immovable, then all forces would be stopped by it - therefore you cannot have an unstoppable force.
Whichever you pick - the other cannot exist.
A bit like having two cubes, both of which are heavier than the other. It just doesn't work.
Nothing. Could never happen in the real world.
I imagine that they would ';merge'; through each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)