Applied Maths ey??

WolfForager

3 days to go! Yahoo!

I only have 5 questions (1,3,4,8,10), i want to study one more (of course) should i go for collissions or statics? All help appreciated!!

So how is everyone set for it? I'm bloody nervous and i have a migraine today and it's limiting my workload >_>

likely_lass

i find statics impossible (maybe thats just me) it does tie into pullys & wedges a bit but i just think its a nightmare


collisons would be a better option imo, i just think its nearly always a really nice question

Fince

likely_lass wrote: »

i find statics impossible (maybe thats just me) it does tie into pullys & wedges a bit but i just think its a nightmare


collisons would be a better option imo, i just think its nearly always a really nice question

couldn't agree more. collisons was the last question i covered, but its now my second favourite question, after projectiles. theres a set procedure which is easy to learn. statics takes a lot of getting used to, or it did for me anyway.
check out the notes on www.thephysicsteacher.ie

WolfForager

Cheers lads, was supposed to go over collission again before the LC but i never got around to it.

robz18

Definitely collisions, they're so easy and it's basically the same every year. All you need to know is the conservation of momentum, Newton's experimental law and how to do oblique collisions.

likely_lass

some of ye might find this helpful

http://www.rte.ie/exams/Others/appliedmaths.pdf


aidan what a babe

i can hear him in my head when i read this i love the man for his love of maths lol

WolfForager

likely_lass wrote: »

some of ye might find this helpful

http://www.rte.ie/exams/Others/appliedmaths.pdf


aidan what a babe

i can hear him in my head when i read this i love the man for his love of maths lol

Had him for maths on saturdays... prefer oliver murphy myself :P

likely_lass

WolfForager wrote: »

Had him for maths on saturdays... prefer oliver murphy myself :P

BLASPHEMY

robz18

WolfForager wrote: »

Had him for maths on saturdays... prefer oliver murphy myself :P

AGREED

Col Man

Differential equations are too good. Too good.

Ha, I've somehow got the 1986 exam. Good times. And marking scheme.

Haha in other threads, they have this idea where someone asks a question, next poster answers and also asks another question. How poorly would this work for AM?

Oh glorious AM, I bow to you.

mardybumbum

You should be able to aquire a basic understanding of collisions with a few hours study.

Pygmalion

So I've never taken a class in Applied Maths, never really looked at the book or any exam papers, don't know anyone who's doing it.

How do i best spend the next 2 days :P.

Col Man

Do the exam papers. Just start with the earliest one that the marking schemes go back to, and continue from there. If you're able to work them out, good times. If not, religion is also on on Friday...? Lol sorry... If not, then use the book.

errlloyd

Hey lads I just got an email from the mod of

www.thephysicsteacher.ie

He has updated the applied maths section with better notes and stuff, so if anyone needs additional help, check it out.

Dking

any here hate projectiles every 1 tries to tell me that they are easy??? wat questions are yous doing??? im doing 1,2,4,5,8,10 am i taking a chance

Fringe

Projectiles are sooooo easy.

WolfForager

I just don't get collissions >_> Looks like i'll have 5 questions for the exams!!

robz18

WolfForager wrote: »

I just don't get collissions >_> Looks like i'll have 5 questions for the exams!!

What don't you get? All you need to know is the conservation of momentum and newtons experimental law.

WolfForager

robz18 wrote: »

What don't you get? All you need to know is the conservation of momentum and newtons experimental law.

Got it now.. Was doing it arseways before. That AM book for LC and 3rd level is a heap of ****, had me doing all sorts of crap for 2 hours, one look at good old Oliver Murphy's book sorted it out though

robz18

Awesome

Oliver Murphy wrote the skoool.ie applied maths section too, it's pretty good.

MathsManiac

robz18 wrote: »

What don't you get? All you need to know is the conservation of momentum and newtons experimental law.

LOL.

You're right of course. But at that rate, what's not to get about the whole course:

1. Things go up and then down (or maybe across instead).
2. Things fly through the air (except you ignore the air)
3. Things bang into other things
4. Things don't bang into other things (they just watch each other go by)
5. Things get pushed and pulled around by other things
6. Things stay where they are (but only barely)
7. Things sometimes float and sometimes sink
8. Things go back and forth (or maybe bob up and down)
9. Things spin around
10. Things move in some other way not covered above.

So, once you understand all that, you've ten questions in the bag.

Col Man

MathsManiac wrote: »

LOL.

You're right of course. But at that rate, what's not to get about the whole course:

1. Things go up and then down (or maybe across instead).
2. Things fly through the air (except you ignore the air)
3. Things bang into other things
4. Things don't bang into other things (they just watch each other go by)
5. Things get pushed and pulled around by other things
6. Things stay where they are (but only barely)
7. Things sometimes float and sometimes sink
8. Things go back and forth (or maybe bob up and down)
9. Things spin around
10. Things move in some other way not covered above.

So, once you understand all that, you've ten questions in the bag.

I know! What a great subject! Haha, number 10 there... sorted.

Also in collisions, I guess make sure in the ones with oblique collisions, take momentum and experimental law only in the i direction, the j components are unaffected.

robz18

MathsManiac wrote: »

LOL.

You're right of course. But at that rate, what's not to get about the whole course:

1. Things go up and then down (or maybe across instead).
2. Things fly through the air (except you ignore the air)
3. Things bang into other things
4. Things don't bang into other things (they just watch each other go by)
5. Things get pushed and pulled around by other things
6. Things stay where they are (but only barely)
7. Things sometimes float and sometimes sink
8. Things go back and forth (or maybe bob up and down)
9. Things spin around
10. Things move in some other way not covered above.

So, once you understand all that, you've ten questions in the bag.

Uh, no.

What other theory is there in collisions, apart from oblique collisions?

robz18

robz18 wrote: »

Uh, no.

What other theory is there in collisions, apart from oblique collisions?

They could ask you a question with a ballistic pendulum. That has more theory in it than just oblique collisions. (And I think you'll find that there was a hint of sarcasm in MathsManiac's comment).

robz18

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

They could ask you a question with a ballistic pendulum. That has more theory in it than just oblique collisions. (And I think you'll find that there was a hint of sarcasm in MathsManiac's comment).

Yeah I did notice that thanks, which is why I replied the way I did.

Ballistic pendulums, you need theory other than COM and NEL for those?

I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread or not, but basically I'm saying for collisions, you need to know COM, NEL and oblique collisions.
And MathsManiac thinks: LOL, apply that the rest of the course and you get

1. Things go up and then down (or maybe across instead).
2. Things fly through the air (except you ignore the air)
3. Things bang into other things
4. Things don't bang into other things (they just watch each other go by)
5. Things get pushed and pulled around by other things
6. Things stay where they are (but only barely)
7. Things sometimes float and sometimes sink
8. Things go back and forth (or maybe bob up and down)
9. Things spin around
10. Things move in some other way not covered above.

So, once you understand all that, you've ten questions in the bag

And, I'm saying no, he's obviously over simplified it for the laugh.

robz18

robz18 wrote: »

Ballistic pendulums, you need theory other than COM and NEL for those?

Well, to solve a ballistic pendulum problem you need to use the principles of the conservation of linear momentum and Newton's experimental law, along with the conservation of mechanical energy. The conservation of mechanical energy isn't a topic typically pertaining to oblique collisions, hence you need more knowledge than just oblique collisions.

Edit: Yah I've read the thread, I just thought you didn't see the sarcasm in MathsManiac's comment.:pac:

robz18

Conservation of mechanical energy
Not familar with this one...surely enegry is lost in the collision?
Better get learning I guess

Well yah, energy is lost, technically.

But you use the conservation of mechanical energy, [latex]\displaystyle\mbox{mgh} = \frac{1}{2}\mbox{mv}^2[/latex], when a pendulum is "falling" from a height h to strike another body. It's just another way they have of putting a question. One came up like it a few years back, I can't remember the year exactly, but I'll have a look and put it up later.

robz18

Ah yeah, I get you now. Thanks.

WolfForager

............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,/......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`''`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
............../.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._`;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....`~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\




Facepalm.

Facepalm? At what, exactly?

WolfForager

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Facepalm? At what, exactly?

At the last 2 weeks of my life pretty much.


When asked to prove something in part (i) of a question and the asked to used that equation in part (ii), if you get the equation wrong, can you just use the equation they give you for part (ii)?

Davidius

Have 9 questions covered, didn't bother with Hydrostatics.

My notes are in a pile somewhere so I'm just doing questions at the moment. I'm going to have to find my notes soon as I've forgotten how to derive the equations for moments of inertia. :pac:

My main worry is that I tend to take questions too slowly. That could be a problem.

WolfForager

9 questions?? I only have 5 and a bit :P

Garf

WolfForager wrote: »

9 questions?? I only have 5 and a bit :P

Uh-oh...


Anyway, yeah I have 9 to; my class never did hydrostatics.


However, beware people: I heard that occasionally concepts from certain questions have come up on the questions that they don't normally "belong" in the past, and the department of education has justified this by stating that it is all in the syllabus.

Prowetod

Atm I have 4.5 questions ready, but hopefully by the time the exam comes i will have 6.5 questions covered!

So, what did people think? Nice paper? I thought it was ok. I was amazed at part (a) in the relative velocity question, it's pretty much identical to one that's in Text and Tests. 1(b) was pretty nice, too.

What did people get for k in 10(b)(ii)?

timmywex

Q1 Grand
Q3 Eas Enough
Q4 Horribly long part b, didnt get the last part
Q5 No bothers
Q6 Handy as hell
Q8 Ugly part b, awkward to find distances or even where max w was
Q10 Was alright, slightly messy or something.

Q2 looked nice, didnt do it though


Was happy enough overall. Had 6 questions done after an hour and a half, then sat there for 5 minutes smiling at myself!

Davidius

This paper would have great if I'd been able to get sleep last night. Only managed 4 hours.

I got 7Qs done. I was able to fit the 7th question in because I really wasn't sure of 5(b) and 6(b) so I pretty much didn't do anything for either.

Fringe

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, what did people think? Nice paper? I thought it was ok. I was amazed at part (a) in the relative velocity question, it's pretty much identical to one that's in Text and Tests. 1(b) was pretty nice, too.

What did people get for k in 10(b)(ii)?

1/g

Davidius

Fringe wrote: »

1/g

I think that's what I got too.