Thermal Expansion - Both rule and rod

AI Thread Summary
A brass rod's length is measured at two temperatures, 20.0 degrees C and 61.6 degrees C, with a steel ruler, leading to a calculation of thermal expansion for both materials. The coefficients of linear expansion for brass and steel are 19.0 x 10^-6 K-1 and 11.0 x 10^-6 K-1, respectively. Initial calculations for the new length of the rod and ruler were performed, but the final answer was deemed incorrect. A key point discussed is that as the ruler expands, it affects the measured length of the rod, suggesting the need to adjust the final calculation accordingly. The correct approach involves dividing the new length of the rod by the new length of the ruler to obtain an accurate measurement.
nrb93
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A brass rod's length is measured at 20.0 degrees C with a metre steel rule. The length of the rod is determined to be 0.5260 m. The measurement is repeated at 61.6 degrees C. Taking into account the expansion of the rule and rod, what is the new measured length in metres? Coefficients of linear expansion: Brass: 19.0 X 10-6 K-1; Steel: 11.0 X 10-6 K-1. Express answer to five (5) significant figures.


Homework Equations



ΔL = coefficient of linear expansion * ΔT * L

(rearranged original equation)

The Attempt at a Solution



change in length for rod (brass)
ΔL = (19*10^-6) * 41.6 * 0.5260
= 0.00041575
∴ new length (assuming rule is 1m still) is ΔL + L(original)
= 0.52641575

change in length for rule (steel)
ΔL = (11*10^-6) * 41.6 * 1
= 0.0004576
∴new length = 1.0004576


so new length of rod (after both expanded) in my mind should be;
= 1.0004576 * 0.52641575
= 0.526656637
= 0.52666 (5 sig figs)

I do not have the answer to this question - it is marked online (either correct or incorrect, not giving the answer if incorrect). This answer is apparently incorrect so i must be doing something wrong.

Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
welcome to pf!

hinrb93! welcome to pf! :smile:
nrb93 said:
∴ new length (assuming rule is 1m still) is ΔL + L(original)
= 0.52641575

so new length of rod (after both expanded) in my mind should be;
… = 0.52666 (5 sig figs)

if the ruler is expanding, shouldn't the length measured by it be shorter? :wink:
 


tiny-tim said:
hinrb93! welcome to pf! :smile:if the ruler is expanding, shouldn't the length measured by it be shorter? :wink:

ah, thanks a lot ;) hehe, for further reference for anyone else; you can simply do the new length of the rod divided by the new length of the ruler (as calculated above) OR instead; can do (1 - (ΔL of the ruler)) * rod.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top