This approach is incomplete because it lacks to consider the circumscribing octagon.
Dear Scholar
Truth does not follow our views
It is not a mistake but a blunder.
We should accept a truth
OK
"We should accept a truth" -- Yes, of course; but what makes a truth a truth? It cannot be a truth if it's not complete. Here you haven't checked with circumscribing polygons, so half of the truth is missing.
Dear Scholar
It is not correct. Why? Because a new truth would never appear in its totality at the first sight.
For example , to identify a person one need not see his entire body. It is enough we can say who he is just by seeing his eyes.
Second example: We can not understand the total personality by observing just born baby.
Baby is a truth. It implies it is incomplete
We have to wait for his total identity till attains some age.
OK
"We should accept a truth" -- Yes, of course; but what makes a truth a truth? You may be right that a truth can be incomplete, but it can be a truth only if there are no contradictions. Therefore, before a truth can be accepted, it must be tested.
Here, in your 145th method, one important test is missing, and as long as that test hasn't been passed successfully, this approach isn't a truth. And it's clear what that test is: the comparison with the circumscribed polygons.
Dear Scholar
I have been telling repeatedly that a Circumscribed polygon ( CM) remains OUTSIDE the circle , COMPLETELY only up to 36-gon stage.
Beyond that it DOES NOT JUST TOUCH CIRCLE STAYING OUTSIDE , BUT IT MERGES ON THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF CIRCLE EXTENDING THE MID POINT OF EDGE/SIDE OF THE CIRCUMSCRIBED POLYGON.
"I have been telling repeatedly that a Circumscribed polygon (CM) remains OUTSIDE the circle, COMPLETELY only up to 36-gon stage." -- Yes, you have, but that doesn't make it more true. In fact, it's just wrong. There are infinitely many circumscribings polygons, all staying outside the circle (cf. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolygonCircumscribing.html).
Just telling repeatedly doesn't help; present a drawing that shows what you claim here:
"Beyond that it DOES NOT JUST TOUCH CIRCLE STAYING OUTSIDE, BUT IT MERGES ON THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF CIRCLE EXTENDING THE MID POINT OF EDGE/SIDE OF THE CIRCUMSCRIBED POLYGON." -- No, not at all! Are you still misinterpreting an unsuited drawing where the linewidth leads to this impression?
Use the theorem of Pythagoras and you'll see that any point on the tangent has a distance to the center of the circle larger than its radius. Therefore the tangent lies outside the circle, just touching it at a single point only.
Dear Scholar
A few days back I added this diagram for your similar doubt only.
Kindly refer the diagram please.
Do you refer to the following diagram? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarva_Jagannadha_Reddy/project/Discovery-of-the-TRUE-VALUE-of-Geometrical-Constant-COSMIC-Pi/attachment/5a54b8824cde266d588154a9/AS:580870377570310@1515501698841/download/img129.jpg?context=projectUpdateDetail
Well, I have answered already to that diagram. Haven't you read my reply there (cf. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Does_Circle-Square_Composite_Construction_Rejects_Present_Pi_Number_31415926)? Here I repeat it for you:
1.) Be aware that there are several circles in this diagram. The polygon side XY is a tangent only for the second-innermost circle, passing through point Q and named "c2n in". As such, it remains outside this circle.
2.) The same polygon side XY is an intersecting line for the second-outermost circle, passing through the points X and Y and named "c2n circum". As such, it's not a tangent for this circle.
3.) There is no real merging of the tangent with the circumference; this is just a visual artefact coming from the different line thicknesses. Imagine the tangent being drawn as thin as the circle, then it becomes clear that the only overlap between them is at point Q.
Beware, my dear Sarva Jagannadha Reddy, that in this diagram, there are circles of different diameter. So, one has to be careful when talking about the successive approximation of a circle by inscribed and circumscribed polygons -- because in my mind there is only one circle, having a fixed diameter. But it seems that in your mind, you referred to this diagram; maybe this is why you stated that "In 36-gon the perimeter of the circumscribed polygon about a circle is 3.146... In the next doubling it becomes erratic"?
By chance I found the following page where one can generate a regular circumscribing polygon interactively: https://www.mathopenref.com/polygonincircle.html
By clicking on "Full screen" below the interactive graphic, it opens in a separate window. Then one can increase the number of nodes by clicking on "More". Dragging a node allows to zoom in or out. I've tried it up to a 60-gon, but then it's already hard to discriminate it from the circle.
Dear Scholar
A truth is a truth
If you are convinced it is OK
Please explain: "I have been telling repeatedly that a Circumscribed polygon (CM) remains OUTSIDE the circle, COMPLETELY only up to 36-gon stage. Beyond that it DOES NOT JUST TOUCH CIRCLE STAYING OUTSIDE , BUT IT MERGES ON THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF CIRCLE EXTENDING THE MID POINT OF EDGE/SIDE OF THE CIRCUMSCRIBED POLYGON." -- So, what do you mean by that? Is it a truth?
Dear Scholar
After seeing 5-gon diagram sent by you I am convinced even at this stage
the Circumscribed Polygon does NOT NOT NOT remain out side the circle completely.For this I am very thankful to you.
I don't know what you're talking about! Of course it remains outside the circle, completely, and this is due to the theorem of Pythagoras.
To see this, just make a drawing as follows: Let A be the center of a circle. Choose a point B on the circle, so AB is the radius. Additionally, make AB one of the cathetuses of a right-angled triangle, with the right angle at B, by choosing a point C so that CB becomes the second cathetus; then, AC is the hypotenuse. Now, tell me: Where lies point C? Inside the circle, or on the circle, or outside the circle?
Therefore, do not get confused by the line drawings! If you still don't believe it, I'll make a better drawing for you.
"After seeing 5-gon diagram sent by you I am convinced even at this stage the Circumscribed Polygon does NOT NOT NOT remain out side the circle completely. For this I am very thankful to you." -- Well, so what about the square ABCD that you have drawn in your 145th method: Does it also not completey remain outside the circle?
Furthermore, the geometrical construction in "145th METHOD_23-11-16.docx" is incomplete because of the following reasons:
1.) There is no such thing as "the inscribed polygon in a circle" since there are many regular polygons that can be inscribed in a circle.
2.) There is nothing special about an inscribed polygon. A circumscribed polygon can be equally well related to pi.
3.) In the presently considered geometrical construction based on an inscribed octagon, the only relevant geometrical objects are the square and the octagon. The circle is irrelevant; nothing would change in the present construction if the circle were omitted.
Altogether, it is not clear why this construction has anything to do with the circle at all.
Dear Scholar
KG length = Square root of (Pi minus 3)
where Pi is Cosmic Pi value : (14=root2)/4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------One should accept the TRUTH.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For example a half a century ago many people did not accept that a pig and man have evolutionary relationship.
But, the same people realized their opinion was wrong.
How?
At that time the hormone insulin was not available synthetically.
Diabetic patients in whom the secretion of insulin was INSUFFICIENT were given insulin extracted from the pancreas of pigs . Such people survived.
Thus, it is a clear evidence that pig and man are mammals and related anatomically, physiologically etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, octagon and circle are related very clearly by Cosmic Pi
If you refuse to see the TRUTH you are the loser.
"If you refuse to see the TRUTH you are the loser." -- Wait: Didn't you just (namely, here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_the_Traditional_And_Transcendental_Number_31415926Can_Not_Be_Obtained_Experimentally) mourn about "Some gone to the low level of attacking me personally with abusive language"? Say, do you really want to join that low level yourself?
"We should accept a truth" -- Yes, of course; but what makes a truth a truth? It can be a truth only if there are no contradictions. Therefore, before a truth can be accepted, it must be tested.
Here, in your 145th method, one important test is missing, and as long as that test hasn't been passed successfully, this approach isn't a truth. And it's clear what that test is: the comparison with circumscribed polygons.
Dear Scholar
Till Copernicus period we believed Geocentric theory of Solar Family
But , with Copernicus's Heliocentric Theory we have concluded the Earth and other planets moves around the Sun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then are we right in saying daily Sun rises and Sun sets ( as if Sun moving)
Is it not contradictory to the reality?
However Truth remains Truth.
Similarly
Cosmic Pi is a REALITY
"But , with Copernicus's Heliocentric Theory we have concluded the Earth and other planets moves around the Sun." -- So what? The main point is missing: WHY did we move from a geocentric to a heliocentric view of the universe? Because in the heliocentric view the facts match better, there are lesser contradictions, and predictions can be made, which can be tested; and they were found to be true.
And that's why it is natural science: There is a reason for it, and there are logical consequences, and all of that can be tested by experiment.
"Cosmic Pi is a REALITY" -- No, not as long as it hasn't passed the test with circumscribed polygons. Without passing this test, Cosmic Pi is not science.
Dear Scholar
You are 100% wrong in insisting the 31.141... of circumscribed polygon about a circle
You are looking at Cosmic Pi with prejudiced mind.
"You are looking at Cosmic Pi with prejudiced mind." -- Sorry, you don't know anything about my state of mind. Watch out that you don't join that low level of language and thinking that you experienced yourself (see the relevant quotation above)!
"You are 100% wrong in insisting the 31.141... of circumscribed polygon about a circle" -- I do not insist on any correct pi value at all, I only care about the Cosmic Pi value, which I put to the test.
Again: What makes a truth a truth? For sure, it can be a truth only if there are no contradictions. Therefore, before a truth can be accepted, it must be tested; this is standard scientific practice.
Dear Scholar
The Cosmic Pi has been TESTED by 184+ methods
No, neither in "6_LEONARDO DA VINCI’S INGENIOUS WAY OF CARVING ONE-FOURTH AREA OF A SEGMENT IN A CIRCLE.pdf" nor in "170 method 6th approach to squaring a circle.docx" there is any test with circumscribing polygons. So, where are such tests?
Dear Scholar
You do not accept truncation is there and hence 3.141 ... of circumscribed polygon (CM) is wrong.
Your mind is fixed on CM
--------------------------------------------------------------
For example we still say Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
It is wrong
How?
Copernicus theory says Heliocentric theory where Sun is stationary and planets including the Earth move around Sun
Rising and setting both are optical illusions
They are misleading terms ( phrases) and UNSCIENTIFIC.
------------------------------------------------
For that reason I coined 2 new phrases
1. FRONT SUN instead of Sun rise and
2. AWAY Sun instead of Sun set
3. and sent to Cambridge English Dictionary & Oxford English Dictionary a couple of days ago
to consider these two phrases for inclusion in their dictionaries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the by my new word COSMOMETRY for the study of geometry of Stars and Planets of the WHOLE Cosmos and sent a year ago to Macmillan Open Dictionary.
"You do not accept truncation is there and hence 3.141 ... of circumscribed polygon (CM) is wrong. Your mind is fixed on CM." -- Sorry: Your mind is fixed, because several times I have declared already that I do not care about 3.141... being correct or not. Instead, my mind is fixed on the "Cosmic Pi" value, which I put to the test. So, where is the test with the circumscribing polygons?
And yes, I do accept that there is truncation for circumscribing polygons. But that doesn't matter, because we just compare (14 – sqrt2)/4 with 22/7, giving 3.1464... and 3.1428... in decimals, and that's already enough to see which one is larger.
And again: I do not take 22/7 = 3.1428... as a value for pi; instead, as you wrote yourself, it is an upper value for pi.
Dear Scholar
I have failed to understand your arguments
"I have failed to understand your arguments" -- No problem; I'll try to make them better accessible by presenting them differently.
The bottom line of an important argument of mine is the fact that for the numbers under debate, (14 – sqrt2)/4 and 22/7, it is enough to know a few decimal places to see which one is larger: 3.1464... > 3.1428...; don't you agree? And the question just is "which one is larger" -- and NOT "which one is pi" or whatever.
[Note that this inequality, which in full reads (14 – sqrt2)/4 > 22/7, is not my argument itself; the argument comes in only together with the meaning of these numbers. Clearly, (14 – sqrt2)/4 is "Cosmic Pi", whereas 22/7 is Archimedes's result for a regular 96-gon circumscribing a circle.]
"We should accept a truth" -- Yes, of course; but what makes a truth a truth? It can be a truth only if there are no contradictions. Therefore, before a truth can be accepted, it must be tested.
Here, in your 145th method, one important test is missing, and as long as that test hasn't been passed successfully, this approach isn't a truth. And it's clear what that test is: the comparison with circumscribed polygons.
Dear Scholar
Searing a truth is a good step instead searching for to disprove a truth
If a "Truth" can be disproven, it wasn't a truth. And I consider it very worthwhile to reveal "false truths", because not much good will result from following falsehood; rather, it would mean to waste time and energy, and possibly to end up in frustration.
So, back to a real truth: 3.1464... is larger than 3.1428...; don't you agree?
Dear Scholar
There are two points : Relative truth and Absolute truth
3.142...and 3.146... are relative and both are truths.. Here is a COMPARISON .One is smaller and the other one is NATURALLY bigger.
Cosmic Pi is an ABSOLUTE and Natural Truth. You may better avoid comparing Cosmic Pi with the polygon number. AND HENCE IT IS A BORROWED NUMBER.
You try to see whether Cosmic Pi has been derived from the TOTAL AREA of the Inscribed circle or not. Here is the AREA METHOD
"3.142... and 3.146... are relative and both are truths. Here is a COMPARISON. One is smaller and the other one is NATURALLY bigger." -- OK, so we have it clear now that 3.146... is larger than 3.142...; fine! (And one can even truncate and round those numbers and say that 3.146... > 3.146 > 3.143 > 3.142..., which already suffices to take the next step.)
So, what does it help us? As you have written yourself (elsewhere; I can show you the location if you want), 22/7 = 3.142... is an upper limit for pi, which means that the true value of the circumference/diameter ratio is smaller. (And please note exactly what I'm saying here: I just say "is smaller", but I don't say anything about the true value itself.)
Dear Scholar
What I said was ARCHIMEDES HAS SAID THAT PI WAS LESS THAN 22/7.
It is NOT my acceptance . I have been QUOTING his view.
My view since March 1998 has been the same COSMIC PI and no second view or thought.
Archimedes is 100 % wrong in fixing the upper limit of pi as 3.142...
He is also NOT NOT wrong .
How?
He chose Exhaustion Method (EM). Whether he or any body X or Y would come to same conclusion if he adopts EM.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In identifying the purity of Golden Crown he was 100% RIGHT. Why?
Because he adopted his own approach and entirely a NEW method.
He proved wrong because EM is some body' s method. The EM is that of EUDOXUS of CNIDUS of 400BC.
Well, it's not that just "ARCHIMEDES HAS SAID" so, but anybody who uses circumscribing polygons finds that pi is less than 22/7. This is a simple mathematical fact that you cannot avoid; also you would come to this result, wouldn't you?
And 22/7 being an upper limit for pi has nothing to do with the exhaustion method, because this method is a way to obtain as many digits of pi as possible by using finer and finer polygons. However, 22/7 is based on just one single polygon. And this single polygon suffices to establish a single mathematical fact -- namely, that pi is less than 22/7.
"Archimedes is 100 % wrong in fixing the upper limit of pi as 3.142..." -- Please explain this: Where is the mistake in the work of Archimedes?
Dear Scholar
Yes. Archimedes made a BLUNDER in choosing Eudoxus 's Exhaustion Method. He DID NOT CREATE A NEW METHOD. He was NOT ORIGINAL in this aspect.
2. Newton was right in his Gravity concept. He is a genius. He made a blunder in supporting the then EXISTING polygon number 3.141.. as Pi
3. Ramanujan is a great mathematician. He too made a blunder in supporting 3.141.. as pi number.
4. I wonder now and then how such great people went wrong in supporting 3.141.. as pi number.
5, I conclude ARCHIMEDES was responsible . HOW?
6. The later generation of mathematicians ALL blindly believed the WRONG PATH SHOWN BY ARCHIMEDES upper limit of 22/7= 3.142...
So, to know the NEW truth one should not adopt beaten tracks . HE MUST THINK ORIGINALLY, and find 100% new approach to understand a new truth which appears in a blurred fashion, like a person , swimming on the surface of the ocean and seeing the fallen needle on the bottom of ocean to regain it by himself.
"Yes. Archimedes made a BLUNDER in choosing Eudoxus's Exhaustion Method. He DID NOT CREATE A NEW METHOD. He was NOT ORIGINAL in this aspect." -- Neither is this a mathematical mistake, nor does it say anyhing about the upper limit of pi being or not being 3.142...
"3. Ramanujan is a great mathematician. He too made a blunder in supporting 3.141.. as pi number." -- Please explain this: Where is the specific mathematical mistake in the work of Ramanujan?
"6. The later generation of mathematicians ALL blindly believed the WRONG PATH SHOWN BY ARCHIMEDES upper limit of 22/7= 3.142..." -- Neither are mathematicians blind, nor do they believe anything easily. So, again: Where is Archimedes wrong with 22/7 being the upper limit of pi? What specific mathematical mistake is there?
"So, to know the NEW truth one should not adopt beaten tracks." -- Naturally so, but a truth must not contradict well-proven mathematical facts; otherwise it's not a scientific truth.
This means that we have entered a philosophical discussion about "What is the meaning of TRUTH"; don't you think so? So, what is your definition of TRUTH?
Dear Scholar
I say Exhaustion Method for pi value is unsuitable. Archimedes was wrong in choosing that unsuitable method. He would have think his own method. That would have led him to see the REAL PI
2. All people were under the impression 22/7 = 3.142 .. was RIGHT. Accordingly his thinking went in the wrong way.
3. If you consider 3.141... as pi as a well-proven mathematical fact, I have nothing to say , except your world and your views prevail
Mathematics is not a science. I consider Geometry is a science . Any body can say anything in mathematics because it is an INVENTED SUBJECT by man ,but not in geometry ,because it has to be backed by a VISUAL GEOMETRICAL CONSTRUCTION.
Truth is one which is real and to be substantiated either with an evidence or not.
For example I have NOT seen my brain in the cranium of my head.But still I have to accept I have brain in my head.
"I say Exhaustion Method for pi value is unsuitable." -- Why is it unsuitable? Remember that Prof. Vitthal Jadhav has declared that he was mistaken in his previous objections against Archimedes' work.
"2. All people were under the impression 22/7 = 3.142... was RIGHT. Accordingly his thinking went in the wrong way." -- What do you mean by "under the impression"? Don't you think mathematicians are able to think for themselves? Don't you think that if 22/7 were indeed wrong that nobody would have noticed?
"3. If you consider 3.141... as pi as a well-proven mathematical fact, I have nothing to say, except your world and your views prevail" -- This is just another sidestepping argument. How many times do I need to tell you that here I don't care about the true value of pi? Here it's only about putting "Cosmic Pi" to the test. For that test I don't need to know the true pi value.
"Mathematics is not a science. I consider Geometry is a science." -- OK; so let's do some geometry and construct a circumscribing polygon. This is a "VISUAL GEOMETRICAL CONSTRUCTION" as you requested. So, why don't you accept the result coming from that construction?
"Truth is one which is real and to be substantiated either with an evidence or not." Sorry: "either with an evidence or not" doesn't make any sense to me; please explain this in more detail.
Dear scholar
I noticed that 3.141... is wrong , only after I came to know Cosmic Pi in March 1998.
We will be discussing like this for years.
Better you forget Cosmic Pi and enjoy this time with your wife and children.
"I noticed that 3.141... is wrong, only after I came to know Cosmic Pi in March 1998." -- Unfortunately, that journey of yours is still far from the end; it will continue as long as you refuse to accept that "Cosmic Pi" is just an interesting geometrical construction but has nothing to do with the circumference length of the circle.
"We will be discussing like this for years." -- Yes, of course; I'm fully aware that this is possible! But I don't mind: On the one hand, I enjoy it this way, on the other hand, I still think that there is a chance that we can settle this within less than a year; for details see below.
"Better you forget Cosmic Pi and enjoy this time with your wife and children." -- Well, indeed, my wife thinks differently about my time spent in this discussion in general, but neither she nor the children have to miss me out. So, this aspect isn't a reason for me to forget about "Cosmic Pi"...
Now, something about possible ways to end this discussion: We're discussing a question in a theoretical way, but this question can be also treated experimentally -- as you already did: Construct (as real-world objects) circles of different size, measure their diameter, measure their circumference, take the ratio, and discuss the various uncertainties involved in order to make sure the result is relevant for the distinction between 3.146 and 3.142. Do you agree that this would be a reliable way to help us in our discussion?
Dear Scholar
Measuring diameter and circumference of different circles do not give correct results at the 3rd decimal place.
For that reason 183 rd method is a right choice.
If you are really interested to test the correctness of Cosmic Pi you may study this experiment and think over on it POSITIVELY without prejudiced mind.
"Measuring diameter and circumference of different circles do not give correct results at the 3rd decimal place." -- Are you sure? How did you come to this conclusion?
The point is that in the definition "circumference / diameter = pi", there is no restriction to the accuracy; the number of valid decimal places of the result just depends on the number of valid decimal places of the single measurements of circumference and diameter.
So, if we want to make a distinction between 3.146 and 3.142, we need to obtain the difference of 3.146 – 3.142 = 0.004 without doubt. This means that we need to measure both circumference and diameter with an accuracy better than 0.004 / 3.146 = 0.00127..., which is roughly 0.13 %. Nowadays, length measurements can be highly acurate, so I think this is not a real problem.
"For that reason 183 rd method is a right choice." -- No, not at all. You only add up lengths of straight lines in this method, but the circumference is curved, so the standard measurement method of "length" does not apply (because it is restricted to straight lines).
"If you are really interested to test the correctness of Cosmic Pi you may study this experiment and think over on it POSITIVELY without prejudiced mind." -- Well, I watched "Exact Pi-by experiment.mp4" again, but obviously your length measurement doesn't have the required accuracy of 0.13 %.
So, let's think together about a possible refinement of "Exact Pi-by experiment.mp4": How could we repeat these measurements, but with higher precision, so that we reach the required accuracy of 0.13 %?
Dear Scholar
Measuring an arc with a rope ALWAYS gives error
----------------------------Your view is WRONG.
Here is one solution but I can NOT do this experiment
1 Colour reading
2.Draw a square and inscribe a circle in it on paper.
3. Immerse the square paper for 1 minute in a colour solution
4. Cut the circle from the paper and immerse similarly in colour solution
5. Read the colour density of square and circle using Colourometer
6. Square reading/ circle reading gives a value.
7. We have 2 pi values
Area of square/ area of circle
So we get one value from the expt.
8 Compare this reading with 2 pi values
SAY: 1/ quarter of 3.14159265358 = x
1/ quarter of 3.14644660941= y
9. Compare x and y with the experimental value and decide which pi value is NEARER to it
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Second Expt.
This time take a thin metal sheet
Repeat the above procedure: Square and circle
Find out resistance of square sheet and circle sheet
Square sheet offers more resistance than that of circle sheet
Take the Ratio and compare with 2 pi values
Again you will get which Pi value is right
"Measuring an arc with a rope ALWAYS gives error" -- I fully agree! All measurements give errors; some more, some less. Clearly, a rope will not help. However, what about this: Do you still have the very large metallic wheel with a diameter of approx. 175 cm? You could make a different measurement for the circumference by rolling the wheel on a straight, flat ground (you need roughly 6 m of free space) for exactly one full turn, marking on the ground both initial and final position of a reference point of the wheel; then, measure the straight length on the ground that corresponds to the circumference of the wheel.
"Here is one solution but I can NOT do this experiment" -- This is a very nice suggestion; do I understand it right that the idea behind is to effectively measure the area (of circle and square)?
"Second Expt. This time take a thin metal sheet" -- Interesting idea, not straightforward at all, but I have no idea about the accuracy. Additionally, one important detail is missing: To find out the resistance of the different sheets by a measurement, one needs to put the contacts somewhere. However, the measured resistance value depends on the shape and the postition of the contacts. Do you have any suggestion for the contact positions?
Dear Scholar
We can use crocodile clips and measure their resistance with RPS (Regulator power Supply)
3rd Expt.
Immerse square paper in a sample of water say 10 ml.
Similarly immerse circle paper in the same water sample of 10 ml.
Estimate salt (NaCl) content in both the samples using Silver nitrate taken in the burette using potassium chromate as indicator.
We will get 2 readings
compare with the 2 pi values
"We can use crocodile clips and measure their resistance with RPS (Regulator power Supply)" -- Well, this misses the point: The value of the effective electrical resistance measured for extended 2D objects depends decisively on the current flow pattern. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "the one and only" electrical resistance of a square- or a circle-shaped sheet when the current speads laterally and doesn't flow in perfectly parallel paths.
"3rd Expt. [...] Estimate salt (NaCl) content in both the samples using silver nitrate taken in the burette using potassium chromate as indicator." -- I heavily doubt that we can reach an accuracy of 0.13 % by this method. But this is important, because we can only get an answer to our question if the method we use is precise enough. If it isn't, we can skip it right away.
However, I'm quite sure that with your large metallic wheel, having a diameter of approx. 175 cm, we should be able to reach the required accuracy, because 0.13 % of 175 cm are just 2.3 mm, and this precision can easily be reached.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation