Physics details on the OAT?

Started by BYUIDoctor
OATBooster | The Ultimate OAT Resource
About the Ads
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
BYUIDoctor

BYUIDoctor

Full Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Can anyone tell me if projectile motion is covered on the OAT? According to www.opted.org, linear motion is covered, but I don't see anything about projectile motion.

Also, do I need to memorize the values of sin and cos. (i.e. the value of cos 60, sin 30, etc.)

Thanks!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
No one's answered yet..

I have not taken the OAT myself, but I do believe I heard someone on these forums say that you should memorize trig stuff 🙁 . I'm not sure though, sorry.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alright here's what I think,

I can't really remember getting a projectile motion question on my real OAT... but I might have. If it's not on the examinee_guide then you might be safe not studying it, but if you have 30 minutes to spare maybe you can kind of briefly review it.

As far as memorizing sin and cos values, I think you don't need to memorize the decimal values, but it is useful to know that sin 30 = 1/2, sin 60 = sqrt(3)/2. I mean it should only take you 10 minutes to get these numbers down so why not?

BYUIDoctor said:
Can anyone tell me if projectile motion is covered on the OAT? According to www.opted.org, linear motion is covered, but I don't see anything about projectile motion.

Also, do I need to memorize the values of sin and cos. (i.e. the value of cos 60, sin 30, etc.)

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The MCAT Kaplan book has 3 to 4 pages just about pulleys. Did anyone have any questions about them on the OAT?

I only ask because I've heard a lot people say Kaplan goes into too much detail and covers too much stuff in the physics section. (i.e. AC circuits for sure)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
In my opinion, Kaplan does a horrible job covering physics in their review book. It's way too detailed and a little confusing. I used my lecture notes to study for physics and I was fine.. most of the stuff on my test used your basic motion equations, force, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm getting so confused with this. Will someone please clarify for me.

I thought concave was diverging and convex was converging?? Kaplan has it the other way around.

Is it different if you're talking about a lens vs. a mirror?

Also, which has positive focal lengths, image distances, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For mirrors:

Concave has positive focal points,
Convex has negative focal points

For Lens:

Converging lens has positive focal pt
Diverging lens has negative focal pt.

Also, if you look at a concave mirror and a diverging lens, they have the same shape (narrow in the middle, and get thicker to the top and bottom), the key is to know that concave mirror = positive focal pt whereas diverging lens has negative focal pt.

In terms of image distance, object distance etc, the best thing to do is not to memorize the how certain mirrors/lens effect the distance and inversion of the image and whatnot. You just need to know these two equations:

1/i + 1/o = 1/f
m= -i/o

If you know these equations and the fact that concave/converging = positive focal, convex/diverging = negative focal pt, then you can deduce everything else.

BYUIDoctor said:
I'm getting so confused with this. Will someone please clarify for me.

I thought concave was diverging and convex was converging?? Kaplan has it the other way around.

Is it different if you're talking about a lens vs. a mirror?

Also, which has positive focal lengths, image distances, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
hey I am studying w/ the kaplan book too, i think I can add onto what Sight5 said....

Only for mirrors, do you use the vocabs "concave", "convex"

For lenses, you can not use "concave", "convex" to describe them.
You can only use converging, or diverging.
Cuz on one lens, there is always a concave side and a convex side. (take a diverging lens for example, assume the light is coming from the left, going to the right, and you are looking at the surface where the light would hit first, the first surface is concave, then the next surface the light hits is convex.

and I am looking at p.1176, 2nd paragraph, last sentence, it says
concave = converging
convex = diverging
sooo....kaplan has it right =)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.