I know that I attached too much papers I just did because it may help you to ans

Question

I know that I attached too much papers I just did because it may help you to answer the discussion questions
Thanks. Part A: magnitude t 17015g| 173 1730 Experimental Graphical magnitude | 170g± 5g | 1739 | 1730 GraphicalMathematical x-component angle magnitude l 100 5 angle y-component Part B: Experimental Graphical Mathematical magnitude angle magnitude 09+ 5 angle x-component O t5 1509± 59 270 ±05 3153.2 y-component Part C: Graphical 230 271 Experimental Mathematical 794 273- magnitude 1800± Resultant angle 0.5 Part D: Experimental Graphical Mathematical magnitude l | 220 2a, ±55 | 235 Resultant angle

Explanation / Answer

1 a. The best agreement among the three different methods is found in Part A.

The results obtained experimentally, graphically, and mathematically are in good agreement since, for the x-component, the graphical and experimental methods are within the tolerance range and for the y-component, the three values are the same.

1 b. The worst agreement is found in Part D.

The graphical value of the magnitude and angle are much beyond the tolerance range and the mathematical value for the angle is more than the experimental value.

1 c. The procedure of Part B is more accurate than that of Part C, since all the graphical and mathematica; values of Part B are within the toerance range, and the mathematical results for Part C are within the tolerance limits.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

---