« first day (2273 days earlier)      last day (647 days later) » 

05:13
@JohnRennie Hello :)
I got a response from my teacher
Hi :-)
He said I could do the one on the right and I could add a coil to it
He said I could potentially measure the peak frequency and resistance or reactance
By varying f
Yes if you want to do that it would make a good experiment. LC circuits display a phenomenon called resonance that would be interesting to study. It depends on how much work you want to do.
Inductors have an inductance usually written as L, and if you put an inductor and capacitor together they have a resonant frequency given by:
f = 1/(2𝜋√(LC))
You can see this by varying the frequency and measuring the voltages as you did for the RC circuit. The maths is a bit more complicated but not terrible.
You'd need to ask the technicians if they have inductors, and if so what values of L they have.
06:09
@Ajay I have updated the spreadsheet to include calculations for the RLC circuit.
If you're interested we can discuss why we get this behaviour in an RLC circuit.
07:01
@JohnRennie Hi!
@Wolgwang Hi :-)
22 hours ago, by Wolgwang
@Wolgwang I will get different answer if I use $d(1-\frac{y^2}{2D^2}=6\lambda$
22 hours ago, by Wolgwang
When to use what?
@JohnRennie
What is the nature of your confusion?
@naturallyInconsistent Eh? When to use which formula?
@Wolgwang you need to be clearer, which particular two versions are you talking about? Are you wanting to ask if you should be using $\frac{D}{D^2+y^2}$ or to use $\frac{1}{1+\left(\frac yD\right)^2}$?
If you are asking about $d\left(1-\frac{y^2}{2D^2}\right)$, then obviously you will get something different because this is an approximation, as opposed to the exactly ones above
@naturallyInconsistent Yes, when to use cosx expansion by Taylors or when to use pythagoras.
07:33
The original form was exact, isn't it?
@naturallyInconsistent But that too is due to approximation, no? We get that angle if we consider the two rays to be parallel.
You are correct. If you want to compute with greater precision, you could set up that, but then you will lose the ability to easily predict where they are, because the calculations become too difficult.
And all that work, will mostly only get you into numerical difficulties.
Because the physical reason why we considered the parallel rays approximation, is particularly good, and so it is really difficult to observe any deviation from parallel rays approximation.
Ok Thanks :)
@JohnRennie Evaporation can take place below boiling point, right?
Why do you ping him when he is obviously busy doing something else?
and yes, by definition.
@naturallyInconsistent I ping so that he can take a look when he gets time :)
@naturallyInconsistent Are you free? Can I ask a doubt?
07:42
Yes I am free for a bit
And
These two are similar questions but the process is somewhat different.
In the image, we are considering that the liquid can evaporate below the BP so we don't have to consider energy used in raising its temp to bp.
While in the link, we are considering the energy required to take the temp to BP.
Why the difference?
In both cases they are making approximations. In the image, they should have raised the temp to BP, but it is a tolerable approximation not to, because the latent heat of vaporisation is a lot bigger than the heat needed to raise the temp to BP
In the link, unless the evaporated part is allowed to escape, the latent heat should be added back. So, it is not particularly clear how this question is meant to be setup/interpreted.
 
2 hours later…
RR.
RR.
09:35
@JohnRennie Good evening sir!
Quick Doubt...
@RR. Hi :-)
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie Hi sir!
Sir... In this question, I found value of Q... Getting stuck in the min KE part...
The problem here is that after the reaction the proton and oxygen atom formed by the reaction will not be stationary.
RR.
RR.
Yes sir...
You need to do the reaction in the centre of mass frame.
RR.
RR.
09:43
I didn't get you.
Give me a few minutes. I'm just finishing off answering another question.
RR.
RR.
Sure sir! No problem =)
@JohnRennie This is what my teacher drew
There is the resonance of the coil, the reactance of the capacitor and the resistance of the resistor.
That's a series RLC circuit. I can add that to the spreadsheet as well if you want.
@RR. Do you have the answer?
RR.
RR.
09:59
@JohnRennie The answer given is 2.325 MeV. Not able to arrive to it though =(
OK. If we take the difference between the initial and final masses we get 0.002u
Yes?
RR.
RR.
yes
But this is the energy in the frame in which the total momentum is zero. That is we have the alpha particle coming in with some speed v₁ and the nitrogen atom coming in with speed v₂ and the total momentum m₁v₁ - m₂v₂ = 0.
Does this make sense so far?
RR.
RR.
yes
The way I would do this is to say the momentum of the alpha particle is p and therefore the momentum of the nitrogen atom is -p.
RR.
RR.
10:03
but, the question says that N atom is at rest
It says the N atom is at rest in the lab frame.
So what we need to do is start in the centre of mass frame and do the calculation in that frame. Then we need to transform back into the lab frame so get the KE as measured in the lab frame.
Does this make sense?
RR.
RR.
Ohhh... okay understood
2 mins ago, by John Rennie
The way I would do this is to say the momentum of the alpha particle is p and therefore the momentum of the nitrogen atom is -p.
And E = p²/2m
Yes?
RR.
RR.
yes
m = 4 for the α particle and 16 for the N nucleus (rounding off the decimals) so in the COM frame the total energy is:
E = p²/8 + p²/32 = 5p²/32
Yes?
RR.
RR.
10:08
yes
And the energy we need is 0.002u. So we get:
5p²/32 = 0.002u
RR.
RR.
yes
p² = 0.0128u
0.0128 doesn't have a nice neat square root so let's not square root it just yet.
RR.
RR.
okay
p = √0.0128u
and p = mv, so the velocities of the two nuclei are
α = +(√0.0128u)/4
N = -(√0.0128u)/16
where the different signs are because the nuclei are moving in opposite directions.
Yes?
RR.
RR.
10:13
yes
And we subtract the two velocities to get the relative velocity:
v = (√0.0128u)/4 - (-(√0.0128u)/16) = 5(√0.0128u)/16
OK so far?
RR.
RR.
yes
And since in the lab frame the N nucleus is stationary, in the lab frame the α velocity is just this relative velocity that we just calculated.
Does this make sense?
RR.
RR.
yes... it does
OK, and we are nearly there because now we have the velocity of the α particle in the lab frame, and its KE is just ¹⁄₂mv²
So the KE is:
E = ¹⁄₂ × 4 × (5(√0.0128u)/16)²
RR.
RR.
10:18
Yes.... I was able to understand it now...
I make that:
E = 0.0025u
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie Must multiply this by 930 for answer in MeV
Yes, and 0.0025 × 930 = 2.325 MeV
RR.
RR.
Yes sir!
OK, this probably all seemed a bit gruesome the first time you see a calculation like this.
Do you want to step through it again or can you see how it works?
RR.
RR.
10:21
I will try it once on my own again... to make sure i've understood it alright
OK, I'm around for another half hour or so i you want to go through it again.
@JohnRennie Hi!
Hi :-)
3 hours ago, by Wolgwang
Why the difference?
Can we start at the beginning. Bear in mind I haven't read the discussion between you and naturallyInconsistent.
10:29
Yes
3 hours ago, by Wolgwang
user image
This question?
@JohnRennie oh, it is in the same chain just above that message. I replied to him and he didn't respond
@JohnRennie In the 'amont of heat required to vaporize'
We are not using the energy to raise the temp to BP because evaporation can occur below BP?
Ah, OK. The problem is that below the BP we only get evaporation until the partial pressure of the evaporated water is equal to the vapour pressure of water at whatever temperature we are using.
So for example at 0°C the vapour pressure is very low (I forget the exact figure) so unless you had a huge volume for the water to evaporate into it would simply not evaporate.
Does this make sense?
10:36
If you allow evaporation below 100°C the question will get very complicated as you need to know the volumes involved, and the vapour pressure of water (which is a function of temperature) and indeed the latent heat of vaporisation is also a function of temperature.
I see the point you are making, and you are quite correct, but I'm sure the question means you to boil the water not just let it evaporate at a lower temperature.
Ohk
Thanks JRS and naturallyinconsistent
You're welcome :-)
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie I was able to solve it... Thank you so much =)
@RR. OK :-)
RR.
RR.
Also, @JohnRennie Any advise on attempting JEE-Adv Qs?
10:45
The questions aren't that different from Mains. The skills you learn for Mains are what you need for Advanced. It's just that Advanced requires a bit of extra thought about how to set up the equations.
That question we just did looks to me like an Advanced question. Was it?
RR.
RR.
Yes... Adv 2022
It was a good example of what makes Advanced harder. Nothing in the calculation was hard, but you needed to understand that you had to work in the COM frame.
That's because the minimum energy is when the reaction products have zero KE so all the reaction has gone into the mass deficit. Yes?
RR.
RR.
Yes... But, it takes so long for it to strike that that was the concept we have to use...
That's why you're practicing now :-)
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie Yes
10:48
And obviously the reaction products can only have zero KE in the COM frame i.e. the frame in which everything is stationary.
@RR. Now you've done it you'll remember when you see similar questions.
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie Yes... But, I often get petrified just by looking at the questions
@JohnRennie Yes...
@RR. Yes, because right now they will be scary hard!
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie Hopefully, I would remember them
You just need to chip away at them and you'll be surprised how fast you get up to speed.
You can always ask here if you run into a question you cannot do.
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie That's the thing really,,, When I solve the questions as a test, I'm not able to do them... When I try them later, they just seem a bit easier
10:52
@RR. It's just practice.
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie Yes... This room, especially you are a great support... Thank you so much for being there =)
It seems like a huge mountain to climb at the moment, but you will make progress if you keep at it.
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie I guess I'll just keep trying more and more questions... Hope I'll make a bit more progress
@JohnRennie Yes sir...
Yes, just keep at it. Are you giving the JEE in 2024?
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie No sir 2023
June 4
10:55
June 4? That's the advanced exam isn't it? Have you already given Mains?
RR.
RR.
Yes I have...
Qualified for advanced
Well done :-)
RR.
RR.
Thank you sir =)
Remember that the advanced exam always includes some really, really hard questions - questions even I can't do. They deliberately put them in to let the few really good students shine.
So if you find an advanced question looks impossible that's probably because it is!
You don't need to answer the impossible questions, you only need to answer enough questions.
RR.
RR.
@JohnRennie Ohh dammmnn... I did come across some in math... Even the solution was too hard to understand
@JohnRennie As far as my tests have gone, I barely clear the overall cutoff... Subject cutoffs sometimes I don't...
11:01
But you're already guaranteed a place at a good NIT. Yes?
RR.
RR.
The problem really is the fact that if u focus too much on one subject the other goes off... =(
@JohnRennie No sir! =(
With my rank, I could get into an NIT
Ah OK.
RR.
RR.
But, I wouldn't get cs engineering
Which is my dream...
So, I might not end up joining an NIT...
OK. But for now you just need to concentrate on the advanced exam and see how it goes.
RR.
RR.
So, trying for Adv and BITS... Both being really difficult 😅
@JohnRennie Yes sir...
RR.
RR.
11:49
@JohnRennie in this question, would the effect of the 1N forces be the same as if they were exerted at the COM, ie at the centre of the sphere?
 
3 hours later…
14:44
@JohnRennie Sure. It would be helpful to have it on the sheet.
15:12
@Ajay Done. I've added calculations for the RLC series and parallel circuits
Could you send the link here?
For the sheet, I can't find it.
What is the difference between the RLC parallel and RLC series?
Look at the circuit diagrams I'm included on the sheets
They're the same. So no difference.
15:17
This is parallel.
And this is series.
In the first diagram the coil and capacitor are in parallel and in the second diagram they are in series.

« first day (2273 days earlier)      last day (647 days later) »