- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 34
- Points
- 28
We are currently struggling to cover the operational costs of Xtremepapers, as a result we might have to shut this website down. Please donate if we have helped you and help make a difference in other students' lives!
Click here to Donate Now (View Announcement)
i dont get it browe take the magnitude
and then we understand it by either work done BY gas or work done ON gas
How to calculate the angles?
owkay.we are using the formula, but are only taking the magnitude
can someone solve the first question of variant 2/o/n/ 2014 paper 2 and show me your working
ohit's already said work done ON gas.
+work done is energy and is a scalar.
a negative energy has on meaning
Total resistance is 6Ω. Emf is E.
No no no no....... You're misunderstanding the concept of resultant forces and what the question is asking of you.I meant that the weight is balanced by some force first and only then the resultant force produces acceleration. I think you misinterpreted or maybe I didn't convey it properly.
Thanks alot
Thanksno idea u can use http://maxpapers.com/
That surely makes sense but sadly you're not getting what I'm trying to say.No no no no....... You're misunderstanding the concept of resultant forces and what the question is asking of you.
A resultant force does NOT require the weight to be balanced in THIS question. They did not mention anything besides the mass. They did not mention where the object is, what direction the force is acting in, all they said was that there is a resultant force.
They told us there clearly, the objects starts from "rest". Then a force is applied to this "still" object, which makes it accelerate in the direction of the resultant force.
It does not depend on the weight being balanced in order to exist, that is completely false. If the weight is balanced, and the object is not moving, the resultant force would be zero and in the end there won't be any acceleration.
Let me show you a hypothetical situation,
View attachment 51988
Then a force is applied to the object, perhaps friction resists that?
View attachment 51989
Force = mass x acceleration, NOT weight x acceleration.
Both these forces here, are dependent on the mass.
View attachment 51990
This should be considered, but in THIS question, it's irrelevant. We are not required to consider it.
Hope that made sense
What are you trying to say?That surely makes sense but sadly you're not getting what I'm trying to say.
Ok bro, just solved this for you.Hello guys, could someone please help me in this one, I tried reading the marking scheme multiple times but it didn't help at all.
I am unable to solve 9b
I would appreciate a clear explanation ^_^ THANKS!
Paper: 9702/s09/qp4 Question 9b, page 16
View attachment 51920
For almost 10 years, the site XtremePapers has been trying very hard to serve its users.
However, we are now struggling to cover its operational costs due to unforeseen circumstances. If we helped you in any way, kindly contribute and be the part of this effort. No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
Click here to Donate Now