Yeah, that's one way, or you can use integration by parts after letting .Yeah i got to there, but im not sure where to go lol
should i let u=x-2
then do another trig sub, then reverse everything back
He answered the extra challenge Q that I'd given before (which wouldn't be asked in HSC).Didnt braintic answer this
Is the answr it takes longer on its way up since its being opposed by two vectors: weight and resistance while on the way down the weight vector is positive therefore quicker on the way down ?He answered the extra challenge Q that I'd given before (which wouldn't be asked in HSC).
It takes longer on the way down.Is the answr it takes longer on its way up since its being opposed by two vectors: weight and resistance while on the way down the weight vector is positive therefore quicker on the way down ?
Here's braintic's answer:Is the answr it takes longer on its way up since its being opposed by two vectors: weight and resistance while on the way down the weight vector is positive therefore quicker on the way down ?
Extra challenge: As resistance is a non-conservative force (since it is dependent on velocity and not position), only reducing the total energy of the body, at any point in its downward path it must have less kinetic energy and hence less speed than at that point in its upward path (because potential energy is the same at both times). Since it is slower all the way down, it takes longer on the way down.
Since i had troubles with both methods at the beginning ill help yahneed help with this:
volume obtained by rotating (x-1)^2+y^2/4=1 about y-axis using slices
yeahAhh i see, i was just confused due to the +/- sign, so the outer radius assumes the larger x value - therefore a + sign?
Shouldn't the first step be something likei)
ii)
You're right, that's what the working should be (and there should be no mg).Shouldn't the first step be something like