Problem with two review problems

  • Thread starter maverick99
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Review
In summary, The first problem involves finding the perimeter of an isosceles triangle with base angles of 36 degrees and an area of 580cm sq. The given answer is 126.4cm. The second problem is about a designer planning the dimensions of a rectangular workbench to be four times as long as it is wide. By making the width 2.5ft greater and the length 4.7ft less, the workbench becomes a square. The dimensions of the square are not specified. The formula for finding the area of a triangle is 1/2(b)(h) where b is the base and h is the height. The angles in an isosceles triangle should add up to 180
  • #1
maverick99
74
0
First of all, thanks for anyone who helps me with this

1. Find the perimeter of an Isoceles triangle that has base angles of 36 degrees and an area of 580cm sq.
The given answer is 126.4cm.

2. A designer plan the top of a rectangular workbench to be four times as long as it is wide, and then determines that if the width is 2.5 ft greater and the length is 4.7ft less, it wouldbe a square. What are its dimensions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
maverick99 said:
First of all, thanks for anyone who helps me with this

1. Find the perimeter of an Isoceles triangle that has base angles of 36 degrees and an area of 580cm sq.
The given answer is 126.4cm.

2. A designer plan the top of a rectangular workbench to be four times as long as it is wide, and then determines that if the width is 2.5 ft greater and the length is 4.7ft less, it wouldbe a square. What are its dimensions?

1.& 2.What have you done so far?The problems are not difficult,and therefore it's better that u did them yourself,maybe with some help from us.Post your work.

Daniel.
 
  • #3
dextercioby said:
1.& 2.What have you done so far?The problems are not difficult,and therefore it's better that u did them yourself,maybe with some help from us.Post your work.

Daniel.

I just need help starting both of them, that's all.
 
  • #4
Well - what's the formula in getting the area of the triangle??
You should start off with that.
 
  • #5
futb0l said:
Well - what's the formula in getting the area of the triangle??
You should start off with that.

well i know that its 1/2(b)(h) but i don't know what it means by 2 base angles of 36 degrees. Since it's isocoles, doesn't it have a right angle, therefore 36+36+90=162 which it should add up to 180
 
  • #6
maverick99 said:
well i know that its 1/2(b)(h) but i don't know what it means by 2 base angles of 36 degrees. Since it's isocoles, doesn't it have a right angle, therefore 36+36+90=162 which it should add up to 180

I doubt the original problem was formulated with a triangle on a saddle (negative total curvature),but in a plane,so those angles should add up to 180°.
U'll find more useful this formula:
[tex] S_{triangle}=\frac{1}{2}l_{1}l_{2} \sin \alpha [/tex]
,where [itex] \alpha [/itex] is the angle between those 2 sides l_1 and l_2.

Daniel.
 
  • #7
isosceles doesn't mean right angle it's just
36+36+ 108 = 180
 

FAQ: Problem with two review problems

What is a "problem with two review problems"?

A "problem with two review problems" refers to a situation where a scientific study or experiment has encountered issues with two separate aspects of the review process. This could include problems with the methodology, results, analysis, or interpretation of the study.

Why is it important to address a problem with two review problems?

Addressing a problem with two review problems is crucial in ensuring the validity and reliability of scientific research. By identifying and resolving any issues with the review process, scientists can ensure that their findings are accurate and can be trusted by the scientific community and the general public.

How can a "problem with two review problems" be prevented?

There are several steps that can be taken to prevent a "problem with two review problems." These include following rigorous research protocols, using standardized methods and techniques, conducting peer reviews, and seeking feedback from colleagues in the field.

Who is responsible for addressing a "problem with two review problems"?

Ultimately, the responsibility for addressing a "problem with two review problems" falls on the researchers and scientists conducting the study. However, the scientific community as a whole also plays a role in identifying and addressing any issues with the review process.

What are some potential consequences of not addressing a "problem with two review problems"?

Failing to address a "problem with two review problems" can have serious consequences for the integrity of the scientific research and the credibility of the researchers. It can also lead to incorrect or misleading information being disseminated, which can have negative impacts on society and public health. Additionally, not addressing these problems can damage the reputation of the scientific community as a whole.

Similar threads

Back
Top