'B' is the correct choice.
BUT ... the angle of incidence is not the angle between the light ray
and the mirror. It's the angle between the light ray and the NORMAL
to the mirror. The 'normal' is the line that's perpendicular to the mirror.
Answer:
The minimum angle of incidence is, ∅ = 56° 18' 35'' to the normal
Explanation:
Given data,
The distance between the two plane mirror, d = 5 cm
The length of the plane mirror, L = 30 cm
According to the laws of reflection, the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection.
If the laser beam touches each mirror only twice, then the base of the triangle formed is not less than L/2.
Let ∅ be the angle of incidence to the normal. The normal divides the triangle into two equal halves where base becomes L/4.
Therefore,
<em> tan ∅ = opp / adj</em>
= (L/4) / d
= (30/4) / 5
tan ∅ = 1.5
∅ = tan ⁻¹ (1.5)
= 56° 18' 35''
Hence, the minimum angle of incidence is, ∅ = 56° 18' 35'' to the normal.
Answer:
I think its oxygen, a conductor is something that allows heat very easily.
Explanation:
Please mark brainliest and have a great day!
Answer:
56 J
Explanation:
The following data were obtained from the question:
Energy 1 (E₁) = 7 J
Extention 1 (e₁) = 1.8 cm
Extention 2 (e₂) = 1.8 + 3.6 = 5.4 cm
Energy 2 (E₂) =?
Energy stored in a spring is given by the following equation:
E = ke²
Where E is the energy.
K is the spring constant.
e is the extension.
E = ke²
Divide both side by e²
K = E/e²
Thus,
E₁/e₁² = E₂/e₂²
7/ 1.8² = E₂/ 5.4²
7 / 3.24 = E₂/ 29.16
Cross multiply
3.24 × E₂ = 7 × 29.16
3.24 × E₂ = 204.12
Divide both side by 3.24
E₂ = 204.12 / 3.24
E₂ = 63 J
Thus, the additional energy required can be obtained as follow:
Energy 1 (E₁) = 7 J
Energy 2 (E₂) = 63 J
Additional energy = 63 – 7
Additional energy = 56 J
The answer that best completes the statement above is COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS. Occasionally, DUI checkpoints, also known as sobriety checkpoints are being established by police on the roadsides for safety purposes. This is also the same with the seatbelt laws. Both of these aim in decreasing motor-vehicular accidents. Comparing these two, we call it cost-effective analysis. When we say cost-effective, the effectivity of the action if being assessed in relation to the cost it takes to enforce the rule.