Condensation is the opposite of boiling
Answer:
349.22°C
Explanation:
Let the final temperature of the two pieces of metal be x.
Now, the warmer metal which is C u reduces from 475°C to x. Thus Δt for C u is; Δt1 = 475 - x.
The cooler metal Cr increases in temperature from 265°C to x. Thus, it's change in temperature is Δt for Cr is; Δt2 = x - 265.
Now from conservation of energy, the amount of energy leaving the C u metal is equal to the amount of energy entering the Cr metal.
Thus;
q_lost = q_gain
Where;
q_lost = m1•c1•Δt1
q_gained = m2•c2•Δt2
Now, c1 & c2 are the specific heat capacity of C u and Cr respectively.
From online tables, c1 = 0.385 J/g°C and c2 = 0.46 J/g°C
We are given;
m1 = 12g and m2 = 15g
Thus;
12 × 0.385 × (475 - x) = 15 × 0.46 × (x - 265)
2194.5 - 4.62x = 6.9x - 1828.5
6.9x + 4.62x = 2194.5 + 1828.5
11.52x = 4023
x = 4023/11.52
x = 349.22°C
Answer:
cold
Explanation:
because being cold helps to refresh my body personally
Enormous O unpredictability is in reference to the most exceedingly terrible conceivable development rate of the calculation. So O(N log N) implies that it will never keep running in some time more terrible than O(N log N). So in spite of the fact that Al's calculation scales superior to Bob's quadratic algo, it doesn't really mean it is better for ALL info sizes.
Maybe there is critical overhead in building up it, for example, making a lot of clusters or factors. Remember that even an O(N log N) calculation could have 1000 non settled circles that official at O(N) and still be viewed as O(N log N) the length of it is the most exceedingly awful part.
To add tartness / good luck and will you mark me brainliest please
