Optics...

[Nasrudin]

What a nutty little bull**** thing to be studying on a lovely spring day.

F@ck me.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Nasrudin]

The more articulate point or inquiry being:

For elaborate systems, such as the determining of positive and negative image height and so on. The yield seems low. I am reviewing it because I missed a discreet question--blanking on a basic formula. Now while trying to bone up on it, it seems to me...

This would require too much effort to execute flawlessly enough to justify memorizing the elaborate system required to get everything straightened out...for what...one discreet plug and chug.

what says the mob. on low-yield minutia. Anyone seen a passage on optics?

 

[Protactinium]

How much time do you have? My friend had an entire passage on optics last year, he wrote around Aug 15 2008? Chances are you won't see it. That's the MCAT though, you study 1000 items, they only ask you about 100.

 

[Nasrudin]

How much time do you have? My friend had an entire passage on optics last year, he wrote around Aug 15 2008? Chances are you won't see it. That's the MCAT though, you study 1000 items, they only ask you about 100.

Thanks, I've got a month left. That helps to justify my effort at least.

 

[n618ft]

Thanks, I've got a month left. That helps to justify my effort at least.

Post some questions if you have them and maybe we can help... sometimes someone might know a trick or two to remembering key elements.

 

[Appless]

I liked the way EK broke down optics you might want to try that. Optics usually isnt too heavy on the mcat but my test in march i seem to remember maybe 5 optics questions total? So it was more then what i normally saw or was expecting. Most of it was fairly easy though.

 

[n618ft]

I liked the way EK broke down optics you might want to try that. Optics usually isnt too heavy on the mcat but my test in march i seem to remember maybe 5 optics questions total? So it was more then what i normally saw or was expecting. Most of it was fairly easy though.

I second that... I did my initial review w/ EK and was happy with what I got out of it... and then I found a couple extra tips in the TPR cracking book.

 

[MD2BEEE]

Funny how people learn things so differently... I think the EK method is terrible. Found an old school method that I much prefer.

 

[NoMoreAMCAS]

There were only a few formulas i've memorized and i've never noticed a need for anything else (not on practice or the real thing). Snells law and the critical angle formula. The 1/o + 1/i = 1/f crap. And the magnification m = -i/o.

 

[meliora27]

In one of the AAMC tests that I took I had an optics passage. Nothing too difficult. More of a reading passage than anything else. Other than generally knowing how Snell's law works I don't think there were even any calculations. More conceptual based. Converging, Diverging, etc.

 

[BerkReviewTeach]

The more articulate point or inquiry being:

For elaborate systems, such as the determining of positive and negative image height and so on. The yield seems low. I am reviewing it because I missed a discreet question--blanking on a basic formula. Now while trying to bone up on it, it seems to me...

This would require too much effort to execute flawlessly enough to justify memorizing the elaborate system required to get everything straightened out...for what...one discreet plug and chug.

what says the mob. on low-yield minutia. Anyone seen a passage on optics?

I sent you a PM that hopefully shows how to side step little soft-soiled animal-generated landminds of the optics type.

 

[nkafeel]

I sent you a PM that hopefully shows how to side step little soft-soiled animal-generated landminds of the optics type.

Focal length and refraction. Problem number 21 from 52 Question in light and optics TBR book 2 of physics.

So if something travels from air to glass vs oil to glass...refraction occurs more in air to glass in comparison to oil to glass since oil and glass have very similar indexes of refraction. Im having trouble understanding and relating to the increasing and decreasing of focal lengths. is there a way to prove this? am i missing something.

I dont understand how if something refracts more its focal lenth decreses. or the other way around. Hope you can clarify this.

 

[petyr_baelish]

The OP is now a resident, wow!
Holy thread bump.

 

[azor ahai]

What a nutty little bull**** thing to be studying on a lovely spring day.

F@ck me.

FUNNIEST THING I HEARD ALL DAY AND EXACTLY EXPRESSES HOW I FEEL ABOUT OPTICS.

physics is my favorite subject, but f@ck optics.