All categories

3 years ago

Why do you think the Combination Square is better to use than the tape

Engineering

1 answer:

Tatiana [17]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

The correct answer to the following question will be "Because the head acts as a stop".

Explanation:

Since the head serves as either a stopping (especially in comparison to something like a floppy tape clip or hanger), the combination square seems to be more reliable and accurate than those of the tape measure.
And maybe you'll know that certain style outlines are still square to something like the sides or finishes.

So that the above seems to be the right answer.

You might be interested in

g A food department is kept at -12oC by a refrigerator in an environment at 30oC. The total heat gain to the food department is

boyakko [2]

Answer:

a) $\dot W = 0.417\,kW$ , b) $COP_{R} = 2.198$ , c) Irreversible.

Explanation:

a) The power input required by the refrigerator is:

$\dot W = \dot Q_{H} - \dot Q_{L}$

$\dot W = \left(4800\,\frac{kJ}{h} - 3300\,\frac{kJ}{h}\right)\cdot \left(\frac{1}{3600} \,\frac{h}{s} \right)$

$\dot W = 0.417\,kW$

b) The Coefficient of Performance of the refrigerator is:

$COP_{R} = \frac{\dot Q_{L}}{\dot W}$

$COP_{R} = \frac{3300\,\frac{kJ}{h} }{(0.417\,kW)\cdot \left(3600\,\frac{s}{h} \right)}$

$COP_{R} = 2.198$

c) The maximum ideal Coefficient of Performance of the refrigeration is given by the inverse Carnot's Cycle:

$COP_{R,ideal} = \frac{T_{L}}{T_{H}-T_{L}}$

$COP_{R,ideal} = \frac{261.15\,K}{303.15\,K - 261.15\,K}$

$COP_{R,ideal} = 6.218$

The refrigeration cycle is irreversible, as $COP_{R} < COP_{R,ideal}$ .

3 0

3 years ago

Water is pumped from one large reservoir to another at a higher elevation. If the flow rate is 2.5 ft3 /s and the pump delivers

4vir4ik [10]

Answer:

2132hp ed enregia

Explanation:

dawdsawdsawdsawdsawdsawdsawdaas

6 0

3 years ago

A hollow pipe is submerged in a stream of water so that the length of the pipe is parallel to the velocity of the water. If the

Arlecino [84]

Answer:

increases by a factor of 6.

Explanation:

Let us assume that the initial cross sectional area of the pipe is A m² while the initial velocity of the water is V m/s², hence the flow rate of the water is:

Initial flow rate = area * velocity = A * V = AV m³/s

The water speed doubles (2V m/s) and the cross-sectional area of the pipe triples (3A m²), hence the volume flow rate becomes:

Final flow rate = 2V * 3A = 6AV m³/s = 6 * initial flow rate

Hence, the volume flow rate of the water passing through it increases by a factor of 6.

8 0

3 years ago

A pitfall cited in Section 1.10 is expecting to improve the overall performance of a computer by improving only one aspect of th

Oxana [17]

Answer:

a) For this case the new time to run the FP operation would be reduced 20% so that means 100-20% =80% from the original time

$(1-0.2)*70 s =56s$

The reduction on this case is $70-56 s=14s$

And since the new total time would be given by $250-14=236 s$

b) For this case the total time is reduced 20% so that means that the new total time would be (1-0.2)=0.8 times the original total time $(1-0.2) *250s =200 s$

The original time for INT operations is calculated as:

$250 = 70+85+40 +t_{INT}$

$t_{INT}=55s$

For this part the only time that was changed is assumed the INT operations so then:

$200 = 70+85+40 \Delta t_{INT}$

And then: $\Delta t_{INT}= 200-70-85-40=5 s$

c) A reduction of the total time implies that the total time would be 205 s from the results above. And the time for FP is 70, for L/S is 85 and for INT operations is 55 s, so then if we add 70+85+55=210s, we see that 210>205 so then we cannot reduce the total time 20% just reducing the branch intructions.

Explanation:

From the info given we know that a computer running a program that requires 250 s, with 70 s spent executing FP instructions, 85 s executed L/S instructions and 40 s spent executing branch instructions.

Part 1

For this case the new time to run the FP operation would be reduced 20% so that means 100-20% =80% from the original time

$(1-0.2)*70 s =56s$

The reduction on this case is $70-56 s=14s$

And since the new total time would be given by $250-14=236 s$

Part 2

For this case the total time is reduced 20% so that means that the new total time would be (1-0.2)=0.8 times the original total time $(1-0.2) *250s =200 s$

The original time for INT operations is calculated as:

$250 = 70+85+40 +t_{INT}$

$t_{INT}=55s$

For this part the only time that was changed is assumed the INT operations so then:

$200 = 70+85+40 \Delta t_{INT}$

And then: $\Delta t_{INT}= 200-70-85-40=5 s$

And we can quantify the decrease using the relative change:

$\% Change = \frac{5s}{55 s} *100 = 9.09\%$ of reduction

Part 3

A reduction of the total time implies that the total time would be 205 s from the results above. And the time for FP is 70, for L/S is 85 and for INT operations is 55 s, so then if we add 70+85+55=210s, we see that 210>205 so then we cannot reduce the total time 20% just reducing the branch intructions.

8 0

3 years ago

In order to protect yourself if you have a dispute with another drivers insurance company you should:

klio [65]

Answer:

C. Get the names and addresses of witness to the crash

Explanation:

The best approach is to let your insurance company handle the dispute. Since that is not an option here, the best thing you can do is make sure you know who the witnesses are, so your insurance company can call upon them as needed.

8 0

3 years ago