Given:
V1 = 4m3
T1 = 290k
P1 = 475 kpa = 475000 Pa
V2 = 6.5m3
T2 = 277K
Required:
P
Solution:
n = PV/RT
n = (475000 Pa)(4m3) / (8.314 Pa-m3/mol-K)(290k)
n = 788 moles
P = nRT/V
P = (788 moles)(8.314 Pa-m3/mol-K)(277K)/(6.5m3)
P = 279,204 Pa or 279 kPa
Express your answer with the appropriate units.
Answer:
13.5 m
Explanation:
M = Mass of cart = 500 kg
m = Ann's mass = 50 kg
= Velocity of Ann relative to cart = 5 m/s
= Velocity of Cart relative to Ann
As the linear momentum of the system is conserved
Time taken to reach the right end by Ann
Distance the cart will move in the 3 seconds
The negative sign indicates opposite direction
Movement of Ann will be the sum of the distances
The net movement of Ann is 13.5 m
B. irregular
C. barred spiral
D. normal spiral
Answer:D:normal spiral
Explanation:
Answer:
D
Explanation:
Answer:
The gravitational potential energy (gpe) possessed by an object or body is directly proportional to the height of the object or body.
Explanation:
Gravitational potential energy (GPE) is an energy possessed by an object or body due to its position above the earth.
Mathematically, gravitational potential energy is given by the formula;
G.P.E = mgh
Where;
G.P.E represents potential energy measured in Joules.
m represents the mass of an object.
g represents acceleration due to gravity measured in meters per seconds square.
h represents the height measured in meters.
Generally, the gravitational potential energy (gpe) of an object or body is directly proportional to the height of the object or body. Thus, the gravitational potential energy of a body increases as the height of the body increases.
In conclusion, an object with a higher height would have a higher gravitational potential energy.
1 3:14
2 3:10
3 4:05
4 3:12
5 3:09
After reviewing her data, she realized that trial 3 was vastly different from the other four trial times. Which of the following reasons could explain the radical difference in melting time for trial 3?
A larger quantity of compound was used in trial 3.
The compound started at a lower temperature in trial 3.
The burner was not directly under the compound during trial 3.
all of these
Answer:
It is actually all of these
Explanation:
Several factors could account for the variance seen in the third trial's melting time. This could be due to using a larger quantity of compound, starting at a lower temperature, or the burner not being directly under the compound.
The radical difference in melting time for trial 3 in Michelle's experiment could be explained by several variables. Given the information present, Michelle could have used a larger quantity of compound in trial 3, thus taking longer to melt. Secondly, the compound may have started at a lower temperature, requiring additional time to reach its melting point. Finally, if the burner was not directly under the compound, this could also explain the longer time as the heat wouldn't be as concentrated on the compound. In other words, the answer could be 'all of these' as they are all potential reasons as to why the third trial had a heavier melting time.
#SPJ3