Answer:
In an elastic collision, the total kinetic energy is conserved, while in an inelastic collision, it is not
Explanation:
Let's define the two types of collision:
- Elastic collision: an elastic collision is a collision in which:
1) the total momentum of the system is conserved
2) the total kinetic energy of the system is conserved
Typically, elastic collisions occur when there are no frictional forces acting on the objects in the system, so that no kinetic energy is lost into thermal energy. An example of elastic collision is the collision between biliard balls.
- Inelastic collision: an inelastic collision is a collision in which:
1 ) the total momentum of the system is conserved
2) the total kinetic energy of the system is NOT conserved
In an elastic collision, part of the total kinetic energy is lost (=converted into thermal energy) due to the presence of frictional forces. An example of inelastic collision is the accident between two cars, in which part of the energy is converted into heat.
Answer:
The correct answer to the question is (A)
When it hits the heavy rope, compared to the wave on the string, the wave that propagates along the rope has the same (A) frequency
Explanation:
The speed of a wave in a string is dependent on the square root of the tension ad inversely proportional to the square root of the linear density of the string. Generally, the speed of a wave through a spring is dependent on the elastic and inertia properties of the string
Therefore if the linear density of the heavy rope is four times that of light rope the velocity is halved and since
v = f×λ therefore v/2 = f×λ/2
Therefore the wavelength is halved, however the frequency remains the same as continuity requires the frequency of the incident pulse vibration to be transmitted to the denser medium for the wave to continue as the wave is due to vibrating particles from a source for example
12. The answer would be C. 1.50 s. This is because if you divide 60 by 40, you will get 1.5.
13. For this one I'm not sure, but what I can tell you is that the heavier something is the faster it will sink, the lighter it is, it will float.
Answer:
I'd say C is the answer they want, though my pedantic side wants to argue for B being true as well.
This question apparently wants you to get comfortable
with E = m c² . But I must say, this question is a lame
way to do it.
c = 3 x 10⁸ m/s
E = m c²
1.03 x 10⁻¹³ joule = (m) (3 x 10⁸ m/s)²
Divide each side by (3 x 10⁸ m/s)²:
Mass = (1.03 x 10⁻¹³ joule) / (9 x 10¹⁶ m²/s²)
= (1.03 / 9) x (10⁻¹³ ⁻ ¹⁶) (kg)
= 1.144 x 10⁻³⁰ kg . (choice-1)
This is roughly the mass of (1 and 1/4) electrons, so it seems
that it could never happen in nature. The question is just an
exercise in arithmetic, and not a particularly interesting one.
______________________________________
Something like this could have been much more impressive:
The Braidwood Nuclear Power Generating Station in northeastern
Ilinois USA serves Chicago and northern Illinois with electricity.
<span>The station has two pressurized water reactors, which can generate
a net total of 2,242 megawatts at full capacity, making it the largest
nuclear plant in the state.
If the Braidwood plant were able to completely convert mass
to energy, how much mass would it need to convert in order
to provide the total electrical energy that it generates in a year,
operating at full capacity ?
Energy = (2,242 x 10⁶ joule/sec) x (86,400 sec/day) x (365 da/yr)
= (2,242 x 10⁶ x 86,400 x 365) joules
= 7.0704 x 10¹⁶ joules .
How much converted mass is that ?
E = m c²
Divide each side by c² : Mass = E / c² .
c = 3 x 10⁸ m/s
Mass = (7.0704 x 10¹⁶ joules) / (9 x 10¹⁶ m²/s²)
= 0.786 kilogram ! ! !
THAT should impress us ! If I've done the arithmetic correctly,
then roughly (1 pound 11.7 ounces) of mass, if completely
converted to energy, would provide all the energy generated
by the largest nuclear power plant in Illinois, operating at max
capacity for a year !
</span>
