| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 2 Apr 2008 21:28:24 IST
|
|
|
jee 07 question
|
|
|
|
2 Apr 2008 21:45:42 IST
|
|
|
plz ne1
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
2 Apr 2008 21:48:57 IST
|
|
|
ans is c
|
The best is the enemy of the good
and
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
.gif)
Orkutnow.com - More Funny Scraps
.gif)
Orkutnow.com - More Funny Scraps
.gif)
Orkutnow.com - More Funny Scraps
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the reasoning is certainly false
the assertion is true because the block looses its kinetic energy in both the cases but gains some potential energy in the 2nd and hence the decrease in mechanical energy in the second situation is less than the first
|
The best is the enemy of the good
and
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Orkutnow.com - More Funny Scraps
Orkutnow.com - More Funny Scraps
Orkutnow.com - More Funny Scraps
|
this reply: 4 points
(with 0
in 2 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
2 Apr 2008 21:52:59 IST
|
|
|
dont even bother abt 1st statement :)
the 2nd is wroing as the frictonal coeff is independent of angle of inclination
the frictional force will only chng n tht will b due to the chng in normal force
|
Nitwit Blubber Odment Tweak
|
this reply: 2 points
(with 0
in 1 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
2 Apr 2008 21:59:06 IST
|
|
|
Yes its [c]
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|
Moderation Team
![[Up]](/templates/default/images/icon_up.gif "[Up]"){kind=icon}
1
![[Thumb - Untitled.png]](/upload/2008/4/2/42fac7cb5f10f20fca612fb33cf6d9b2_27841.png_thumb)
