angelasalaza's blog

From the two panels, we can detect that the pictures are different because of the format the figures were placed. Figures a,b,c were spaced out in no specific measurement of indentation and the bottom figures b and c were entered in a larger scale than figure an opposed to panel two where all the figures were clumped together and figure a had been the biggest figure out of the three. The label of figures in the first panel was placed on the right bottom corner of the photograph opposed to the second-panel labels that are placed in the top left corner of the photograph. Panel one’s formatting also showed distinction through its use of angles and time frame. The first set of photos show a bush covered in snow half way up its branch, a tree located in a parking lot with a snow hill, and the library with the focus placed on a dead tree. The second picture tries to recreate the original copies but does not because figure a does not have the snow covering more than half the branch height as what was observed in the original, figure b has darker snow in front of the tree than the original figure b, and figure c is pictured at a different angle than the original. The format of the copied figure is not similar to the original either the figures are closed in the corner whereas the original has a more spaced out format with no mandated spacing. ​

From the photos, you can conclude that these two pictures were taken at different angles and time throughout the day. the first set of photos show a bush covered in snow half way up its branch, a tree located in a parking lot with a snow hill, and the library with the focus placed on a dead tree. The second picture tries to recreate the original copies but does not because figure a does not have the snow covering more than half the branch height as what was observed in the original, figure b has darker snow in front of the tree than the original figure b, and figure c is pictured at a different angle than the original. The format of the copied figure is not similar to the original either the figures are closed in the corner whereas the original has a more spaced out format with no mandated spacing. 

Voltage, an electric potential per unit charge and current, electrical current carriers for the resistor, have a positive linear relationship. As voltage increases, current increases and there is a directly proportional relationship. Voltage is equal to the product of the current and the resistor constant. The parameters in the model are the slope and the intercept because the model is a straight line. The y-intercept is 0 because when the potential difference is zero, the current is also zero. The slope of the graph represents the resistance of the circuit. According to the LINEST function, the slope is 96.20658458 and the intercept is -0.01947332587.

Voltage and current for the resistor have a positive linear relationship. As voltage increases, current increases and there is a directly proportional relationship. Voltage is equal to the product of the current and the resistor constant. The parameters in the model are the slope and the intercept because the model is a straight line. The y-intercept is 0 because when the potential difference is zero, the current is also zero. The slope of the graph represents the resistance of the circuit. According to the LINEST function, the slope is 96.20658458 and the intercept is -0.01947332587.

The null hypothesis for this lab is that hair measurement between the caliper measurement and double slit measurement does not match. An alternative hypothesis is that the hair measurement between the two data collections do match. The better method to determine accurate hair thickness is to use the caliper, a tool used for measuring external and internal dimension. The accuracy given by the caliper measurement gives a significant number of 0.01mm this set of measurement is defined as a better method because it has a value with more significant figures the double slit method provided inaccuracy due to the location of the hair strand. Factors that contribute to the uncertainty of the hair’s position are the tilt of the projector’s screen and how the strand of hair is taped against the light projection. The tilt of the projector screen showed the uncertainty is 0.05 mm because the hair is taped against the light projection, the uncertainty was predicted to be less than 0.02 mm.

The null hypothesis for this lab is that the hair measurement between the caliper measurement and double slit measurement does not match. The alternative hypothesis is that the hair measurement between the two data collections do match. We think that the ‘better’ method of measurement would be measuring with the caliper the accuracy gets down to the 0.01mm. A set of measurement would be defined as ‘better’ than the other if it is more accurate and has a value with more significant figures. Factors that contribute to the uncertainty of the hair’s position would be the tilt of the projector’s screen, the way the hair is taped against the light projection. For the tilt of the projector screen, we think that the uncertainty would be 0.05 mm. For the way the hair is taped against the light projection, we think the uncertainty would be 0.02 mm. We believe the hair being taped to the projection would be more accurate than the tilt of the screen because the screen seemed more unstable, we couldn’t keep it in exactly the same position.

Analyzing the data from lab 2 the experiment requires the use of Planck constant in finding the pattern of the slope between electron energy and frequency of light from the LED emitter. The law of reflection and the reflected angle from the normal is equal to the angle of incidence from the normal. Because the 1:1 ratio is a constant based off θreflection=θincidence, the slope hypothesis is 1, and the intercept hypothesis 0. The graph compared the recorded Reflection (°) vs Incidence (°), the slope is 0.9485714286 and the intercept is 3.8. The pattern between the refracted angle and the angle of incident is directly proportional. As the angle of incidence increases, refraction increases as well. A 1:1 ratio is not demonstrated because the angle of incidence and angle of reflection presents a higher slope. The graph looks linear but is not linear because of the small angle approximation. The small angle approximation, sinθ is approximate θ if θ is small. In the smaller angle region, the linear portion between sinθ and θ is not linear.

According to the law of reflection, the reflected angle from the normal is equal to the angle of incidence from the normal. Because it should technically be a 1:1 ratio since θreflection=θincidence, the slope should be 1, and the intercept should be 0. According to our graph comparing our recorded Reflection (°) vs Incidence (°), our slope is 0.9485714286 and our intercept is 3.8. The pattern between the refracted angle and the angle of incident  is directly proportional. As the angle of incidence increases, so does refraction, but not at a 1:1 ratio like how angle of incidence and angle of reflection presents to be. The graph looks linear but is not linear because of small angle approximation. According to the small angle approximation, sinθ is approximately θ if θ is small. In the smaller angle region, you get a linear portion between sinθ and θ even though it is not supposed to be linear.

Figure 1. Andean Flamingo (Phoenicoparrus Andinus) in Potosi, Bolivia. Flickr photo by Sergey Pisarevskiy shared under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) License.  

The simple pendulum experiment measured the amount of time ten periods of rotation took place when varying angles of displacement.  Each angle was increased by twenty-five degrees the rotation responded by increasing the amount of time ten rotations took place with an average of 7.6 seconds/10 rotation. Though only the first two rotations were observed to be gradually increasing the last two measured angles increased by more than three seconds. The big difference in time is troubling because each increase should have been less than a second. In my observations, I thought that the increase of angle affected the amount of air friction the pendulum went against. The experiment was interesting because it made me think what if a wrecking ball was used to crash a building the wrecking ball would have to be angled at a smaller degree to cause less disturbance when there is only one target.