<span>D. measuring radioactive decay of element isotopes </span>
(a) 2NO(g) + O₂(g) ⇄2NO₂(g)kp
(b) 2N₂O(g)⇄2NO(g) + N₂(g) kp
(c) N₂(g) + O₂(g)⇄ 2NO(g) kp
Now A is
2NO +O₂⇄2NO₂
ΔG° =ΔG° products - ΔG reactants
=2× 51.3-(256.6)
-70.6kJ/mol.
ΔG° = -RT Inkp
-70.6 = -8.314 ×10⁻³ ˣ 298.15 ˣInkJ
InkJ = 28.48
kp=2.34 ˣ 10¹²
B is
ΔG° = 2× 86.6 - 2 × 104.2 = -35.2
-35.2 = 8.314 × 10⁻³ ˣ 298.15 ˣInkJ
InkJ = 14.2
kp = 1.47ˣ 10⁶
C is
It is also similar
kp = 4.62 ˣ 10⁻³I
Answer:
A <em>concave</em><em> </em><em>lens</em><em> </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>thinner</em><em> </em><em>at</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>cen</em><em>ter</em><em> </em><em>and </em><em>thick</em><em>er</em><em> </em><em>at</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>edges</em><em> </em><em>while</em><em> </em><em>a</em><em> </em><em>convex </em><em>lens </em><em>is</em><em> </em><em>thicker</em><em> </em><em>at</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>centre</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em>thinner</em><em> </em><em>at</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> edges</em><em>.</em>
A theorem can be proven (from axioms or prior theorems), using logic.
A hypothesis can be supported by evidence. The more evidence in support of the hypothesis, the more likely the hypothesis is to be correct. However, you’re always at the mercy of contrary evidence appearing in the future, to reduce the likelihood or even invalidate a hypothesis.
A (mathematical) proof suffers no such vulnerability to future evidence, as long as you hold the axioms of the theory to be true, and as long as there was no flaw in the construction of the proof.
Answer:
A physical trait is visible to the naked eye, such as, having six fingers; and a character trait is invisible to the naked eye, such as, being charming. Both can be subjective, for instance, claiming somebody has a big nose is a subjective comment about somebody's physical appearance.
