All categories

3 years ago

Which of the following is the best example of kinetic energy being transformed into potential energy

2 answers:

3 0

A pendulum is probably the most common showing of this example. As the pendulum swings down, it converts its potential energy (height) into kinetic energy (velocity). At the lowest point the kinetic energy is the highest and the potential is the lowest. At the highest point in its swing the velocity is zero so the kinetic energy is zero and the potential energy is at a maximum (greatest height).

photoshop1234 [79]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

kenetic enery

Explanation:

You might be interested in

Two long, parallel wires carry unequal currents in the same direction. The ratio of the currents is 3 to 1. The magnitude of the

astraxan [27]

Answer:

3A is the larger of the two currents.

Explanation:

Let the currents in the two wires be I₁ and I₂

given:

Magnitude of the electric field, B = 4.0μT = 4.0×10⁻⁶T

Distance, R = 10cm = 0.1m

Ratio of the current = I₁ : I₂ = 3 : 1

Now, the magnitude of a magnetic field at a distance 'R' due to the current 'I' is given as

$B = \frac{\mu_oI}{2\pi R}$

Where $\mu_o$ is the magnitude constant = 4π×10⁻⁷ H/m

Thus, the magnitude of a magnetic field due to I₁ will be

$B_1 = \frac{\mu_oI_1}{2\pi R}$

$B_2 = \frac{\mu_oI_2}{2\pi R}$

given,

B = B₁ - B₂ (since both the currents are in the same direction and parallel)

substituting the values of B, B₁ and B₂

we get

4.0×10⁻⁶T = $\frac{\mu_oI_1}{2\pi R}$ - $\frac{\mu_oI_2}{2\pi R}$

4.0×10⁻⁶T = $\frac{\mu_o}{2\pi R}\times (I_1-I_2 )$

also

$\frac{I_1}{I_2} = \frac{3}{1}$

⇒ $I_1 = 3\times I_2$

substituting the values in the above equation we get

4.0×10⁻⁶T = $\frac{4\pi\times 10^{-7}}{2\pi 0.1}\times (3 I_2-I_2)$

⇒ $I_2 = 1A$

also

$I_1 = 3\times I_2$

⇒ $I_1 = 3\times 1A$

⇒ $I_1 = 3A$

Hence, the larger of the two currents is 3A

3 0

3 years ago

A small glass bead has been charged to 20 nC. What is the magnitude of acceleration in m/s^2 of an electron that is 1.0 cm from

MAVERICK [17]

Answer:

The acceleration is 3.16x10¹⁷ m/s².

Explanation:

First, we need to find the magnitude of the Coulombs force (F):

$|F| = \frac{Kq_{1}q_{2}}{d^{2}}$

<u>Where</u>:

K is the Coulomb constant = 9x10⁹ Nm²/C²

q₁ is the charge = 20x10⁻⁹ C

q₂ is the electron's charge = -1.6x10⁻¹⁹ C

d is the distance = 1.0 cm = 1.0x10⁻² m

$|F| = \frac{Kq_{1}q_{2}}{d^{2}} = \frac{9\cdot 10^{9}Nm^{2}/C^{2}*20 \cdot 10^{-9} C*(-1.6\cdot 10^{-19} C)}{(0.01 m)^{2}} = 2.88 \cdot 10^{-13} N$

Now, we can find the acceleration:

$a = \frac{F}{m} = \frac{2.88 \cdot 10^{-13} N}{9.1 \cdot 10^{-31} kg} = 3.16 \cdot 10^{17} m/s^{2}$

Therefore, the acceleration is 3.16x10¹⁷ m/s².

I hope it helps you!

7 0

3 years ago

How do I figure out this

ahrayia [7]

The Atomic Number is equal to the amount of Protons and Electrons. To find the amount of Neutrons in an atom, you have to look at the Mass Number. The Mass Number is the SUM (_+_=_) of Protons and Neutrons in an atom. In this case, you will have to make up equations. For example: Argon. Argon's Mass Number is 40. You need to find the amount of Protons in the atom (18). Mass Number (40) - Protons (18) = Amount of Neutrons. 40-18=22.
Argon has 22 Neutrons, because Protons(18)+Neutrons(22)=Mass Number(40).

Hope I could help!

8 0

3 years ago

Air is compressed in a cylinder such that the volume changes from 100.0 to 10.0 in^3. The initial pressure is 50.0 psia and the

EleoNora [17]

Answer:

5953.42 J

Explanation:

Given:

Initial volume, $V_i$ = 100 in³

Final Volume, $V_f$ = 10 in³

Initial pressure = 50 psia

Temperature = 100° F = 310.93 K

For isothermal reversible process, work done is given as:

Work done = $-2.303RTlog_{10}\frac{V_f}{V_i}$

Where,

R is the ideal gas constant = 8.314 J/mol.K

Work done = $-2.303\times8.314\times310.93log_{10}\frac{10}{100}$

Work done = 5953.42 J

7 0

3 years ago

HELP ME!!! NO LINKS!!! Compare and Contrast the scientific definitions of theory and law. Explain why the first law of thermodyn

Nataly_w [17]

The date the model was published.

The use of “laws” originated prior to science splitting from natural philosophy. There’s an implicit assumption that God as the creator laid down both moral and natural laws, with the theologian concerned with the former and the natural philosopher concerned with the latter.

“Theory” begins to take hold in the late 1700s and, very roughly speaking, is used to describe more complex models. “Law” eventually became nearly archaic, although still used to describe very pithy models (Amdahl’s Law, Gustafson’s Law).

The word “model” is gradually superseding both of them.

People have tried to come up with hard-and-fast rules to distinguish them, but scientists are unruly beasts, and use whatever language suits them in the moment.

3 0

2 years ago