Physics Study.

Due to boredom, i might as well keep this blog going in the holidays.

Today i summarised Orbital Velocity, Re-Entry Factors, and changes in Launch acceleration.

Still have to do research on Scientist (Von Braun ?)

Hooray for making today productive.

Note to self.

MUST STUDY IN HOLIDAYS

ag (1210) - Lettuce: nitrogen fixation

legumes fix nitrogen, well at least.. the rhizobium bacteria that attaches themselves to the roots does.

its a mutual relationship, the plan tgets nitrogen and the bacteria gets sugars and whatever from the plant, also an environment to live in.

legumes include plants like clover, medic (eg lucerne) and peas

bio (1210) - MaB: [p] analysing xylem

check prac report to double check, celery was left to absorn coloured water for af ew adys, and today was cut up, transverse and longitudal (thinly) and looked at under a microscope.

what was seen was drawn. observed uncoloured phloem adjacent xylem and lignin wrapped around xylem in the longitudal thingo

math (1209) - Locus: parabolas

apparently, if you make a point (focus, let it = S) within a parabola, and the distance between that point (let it = a) is the distance between the parabola and a line (x = + or - a as the equation depending) then.. the distance from that focus point, to a point on the parabola (P) is equal to the distance from that point, down to the point on the x = a line that shares the same x-coordinate as P, and that would be B.

confusing?

diagrams help.

basically.

PS = PB

use distance formula, get rid of square root

we get:

(x - 0)^2 + (y - a)^2 = (x - x)^2 + (y - -a)^2

x^2 + y^2 - 2ay + a^2 = y^2 +2ay + a^2

cancel out the crap..

x^2 = 4ay

just saying, this was a parabola with vertex at the origin.

to change this, just sub in the different coordinates into the distance formula.

likewise..

if the formula was eg

-x^2 = 4ay

it would be concave down, coz rearranging to make y the subject would make the x^2 negative

ext2 (1208) - day 7: workshop 1

apparently the first workshop of two.

it was acutally good.

we got a lowdown on plagiarising and how things are marked. we're not compared to other people, we're compared to the marking criteria, despite having many or no other people diong our area of work.

interesting exercise today.. 10min of non-stop writing.

i dunno if it was meant to be creative or reflective, i ended up doing 2 scripts.

apparently they turned out pretty well. and like.. i wrote a page and a half approx in 10min, like a bit less. so i SHOULD be able to write 6 pages in 40min just like ms sproule said about ext1 people. i guess that's what happens when you write without thinking.

dont think.. thats one of the rules about creative writing, even essay writing.

any ideas.. just get it down.

well with creative writing, dont hold back.. let it all out, lose control, dont stop once your hand starts moving. there are other rules, check book for details.

met other people too, interesting to meet someone doing radio drama, the only one there, and i was the only one doing film.

i'm curious to see their story/ies though.

my journal was checked, im on the right track so far, and i handed in my statement of intention of my story, the one about two people and their parents getting married. in the end i decided the concept to be how differently people see things differnetly.

anyway.. its late.. im sleepy.. late post..

should hit the hay.

cant rmeember other stuff

phys (1207) - Space: analyzing centripetal force

mr robson kept stressing how important it is to analyse things properly.

he went through a process of analyzing uniform circular motion.

first we describe their motion. (uniform and circular, duh)

they have a constant veloctity, but since their direction is changing, there must be an acceleration

F = ma, since there's acceleration, then its assumed there is a force.

that force we then describe.

in a hammer throw, its caused by tension, the pull of the thrower. in a car race, the reaction force is slightly tilted, but gravity is still straight down. add up the vectors and you have a force pulling in a direciton buddy. and with the moon orbiting the earth, its gravity that is pulling on the moon, the force that causes the acceleration

bio (1207) - MaB: xylem & phloem

late posts.

golly i'm behind. i really have to study for biology too. i am dead.

well.. no turning back.. must press on. notes time.

as we know, xylem and phloem are the transport systems in plants. today we got into detail.

XYLEM

they are single-cell thick tubes. how it starts is its a column of cells, and the tops and bottoms dissolve leaving a tube. xylem is made of dead cells.

PHLOEM

they're living cells. they're not exactly hollow tubes, instead of the tops and bottoms of the cells dissolving completley, they have holes and are hence known as sieve cells. since they're living, they need to function, but have no nucleus, so phloem cells have companion cells to do metabolizing for them.

xylem and phloem are always adjacent, so that water can diffuse from the xylem to the phloem as necessary to transport organic material. the process uses active transport, which means it spends energy to do this. it's all diffusion until the concentrated sugar (from the source, normally leaves) until gets to the sink (target, anywhere)

umm.. i think thats all to say, unless i remember later

ext2 (1201) - day 6: perspective

y'know i noticed something last night after i wrote my story for this week. i realize that i write a lot of.. reflective things. all these stories i've written so far for ext2, they've all been reflective! i dunno if that's good or bad, it seems bad.. it's like the only way i can get a story that i think is "good" is by immersing myself in it, which usually draws from my own experience, and ends up being more reflective than narrative.

even if its not based on reality, the outcome is still usually something reflective. i also noticed earlier today, that i'm not that great with talking like other people, other personas. everyone i write about generally speaks the same, coz it's my way of telling a story, but i should learn to create other characters out of nowhere. real characters.

hmm how annoying.. today we talked about "the kiss" and "the chosen vessel" and how different perspectives are used there. it works i suppose, whether they be anonymous or highly obvious, but i guess a good character doesn't even need naming if they're identifyable by how they talk and act.

hmm.. damn.. and that's another problem for me coz i gotta get people to act too.

apparently next week (the day of our incursion) we have to hand in our intention statement. i mean.. i knew it was coming.. and i knew this week was week 7, but it didnt hit me that we need to have an idea; a story; a title by now x_x

i sitll have nothing.. sort of.

after my cohorts read and critiqued my script "nostalgia 2" (they acutally liked it, i was surprised, they said it was realistic. i thought it wasn't.. action enough) anyway.. we went on to thinking about a plot for me.

to go with my two-way view thing, i suggested two people are together at the start, then they split up, and we cut between them on their way home, maybe even someone passes a mysterious text message, that'll leave viewers curious.

i dont know the relation between the two characters, but im thinking.. they get home and hit the computer, then shots of the screen and their conversation, where it's finally revealed what it is taht's so big that makes them all.. reflective on their way home.

im thinking.. maybe their parents are getting married, i dunno something big.. but a breakup is lame, and someone dying is overdone.

another idea that came up from someone else, is filming the day of twins, but not revealing theyre twins 'til the end of the day, where they meet and say something like "so how was your day?" *close movie* but it'd be complicated doing that last scene unless we had actual twins acting out.

the thing is though, the point of the movie would be like to show the unidentification of twins, but then their day would get boring to watch, and to make it interesting, even contrastingly different type interesting would eliminate the point of the movie, because they'd be individual characters.

anyway.. i have a week to come up with a story, i think i'll still go with my original idea. i like it. and yeah.. it'd probably be reflective and anonymous, typical of my stories -.-

math (1201) - Quad: + and x of roots

from now on im going to use * instead of x for multiplication, should be easier to understand without mixing it up with x-axis and all that crap, computer nerds would understand.. these are my notes anyway.

so the proof of this comes frooooommm..

ax^2 + bx + c = 0

what if we dont want the a there?

then its:

x^2 + (b/a)x + c/a = 0

coz that a is always annoying to work with, at least if its not 1

the deal is, we know the roots, lets call em A and B, multiply to get c and add to achieve b

so.. if you wanna get the sum of A and B, it'd be equal to the b value over the a value, aka -b/a, catch it?

i forget why its minus though, but oh wellers, i missed a fraction of the lesson

and to find the product, its c/a

phys (1201) - Space: rocket acceleration

practice question today, worth 4 marks, and after doing it, we had to mark other peoples responses to it.

the question asked to describe the acceleration of a 3-stage rocket anda bout the g-forces felt by the astronauts.

in the graph shown, g-forces gradually increased, dropped whenever an engine was shut off, and hit 0 between stages. that 0 would be when there's no thrust at all, in between stages, when a bit has been dropped off. free fall. because there's no reaction force acting on the rocket opposing gravity, so there's not even 1G.

now the acceleration increased because thrust (F) was constant, and mass (m) decreased as fuel was burned. to keep F=ma true, acceleration increased as mass decreased, and the formula for g-force is g-force = (g+a)/g so as a increased, the g-force did too.

we also did one more question, about conservation of momentum.

in a closed system like this, the rocket on the launch pad would have 0 momentum. but as it lifts off, it gains a momentum, and the fuel kicked out the bottom has momentum too, opposite and negative, so they add up to the initial momentum, 0, proving conservation