Floating piece of wood - buoyancy question.?

A physics student tests the theory of projectile motion by leaping off a 225 meter tall building. She runs off the building hori

tamaranim1 [39]

In this item, we are given with the x-component of the velocity. The y-component is equal to 0 m/s. The time it takes for it to reach the volume can be related through the equation,

d = V₀t + 0.5gt²

Substituting the known values,

225 = (0 m/s)(t) + (0.5)(9.8)(t²)

Simplifying,

t = 6.776 s

To determine the distance of the student from the edge of the building, we multiply the x-component by the calculated time.

range = (12.5 m/s)(6.776 s)

range = 84.7 m

<em>Answer: 84.7 m</em>

4 0

3 years ago

The answer and how to do it

Arturiano [62]

Current = charge per second
2 Coulombs per second = 2 Amperes

Potential difference = (current)x(resistance) in volts.

That's (2 Amperes) x (2 ohms).

That's how to do it.
I think you can find the answer now.

8 0

3 years ago

A swimmer bounces almost straight up from a diving board and falls vertically feet first into a pool.she starts with a speed of

garik1379 [7]

Answer:

a) 1.20227 seconds

b) 0.98674 m

c) 7.3942875 m/s

Explanation:

t = Time taken

u = Initial velocity = 4.4 m/s

v = Final velocity

s = Displacement

a = Acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m/s²

$v=u+at\\\Rightarrow 0=4.4-9.81\times t\\\Rightarrow \frac{-4.4}{-9.81}=t\\\Rightarrow t=0.44852\ s$

$s=ut+\frac{1}{2}at^2\\\Rightarrow s=4.4\times 0.44852+\frac{1}{2}\times -9.81\times 0.44852^2\\\Rightarrow s=0.98674\ m$

b) Her highest height above the board is 0.98674 m

Total height she would fall is 0.98674+1.8 = 2.78674 m

$s=ut+\frac{1}{2}at^2\\\Rightarrow 2.78674=0t+\frac{1}{2}\times 9.81\times t^2\\\Rightarrow t=\sqrt{\frac{2.78674\times 2}{9.81}}\\\Rightarrow t=0.75375\ s$

a) Her feet are in the air for 0.75375+0.44852 = 1.20227 seconds

$v=u+at\\\Rightarrow v=0+9.81\times 0.75375\\\Rightarrow v=7.3942875\ m/s$

c) Her velocity when her feet hit the water is 7.3942875 m/s

3 0

3 years ago

Assume that the electric field E is equal to zero at a given point. Does it mean that the electric potential V must also be equa

lyudmila [28]

Answer:

No, this doesn't mean the electric potential equals zero.

Explanation:

In electrostatics, the electric field $\vec{E}$ is related to the gradient of the electric potential V with :

$\vec{E} (\vec{r}) = - \vec{\nabla} V (\vec{r})$

This means that for constant electric potential the electric field must be zero:

$V(\vec{r}) = k$

$\vec{E} (\vec{r}) = - \vec{\nabla} V (\vec{r}) = - \vec{\nabla} k$

$\vec{E} (\vec{r}) = - (\frac{\partial}{\partial x} , \frac{\partial}{\partial y } , \frac{\partial}{\partial z}) k$

$\vec{E} (\vec{r}) = - (\frac{\partial k}{\partial x} , \frac{\partial k}{\partial y } , \frac{\partial k}{\partial z})$

$\vec{E} (\vec{r}) = - (0,0,0)$

This is not the only case in which we would find an zero electric field, as, any scalar field with gradient zero will give an zero electric field. For example:

$V(\vec{r})= (x+2)^2 (y+4)^3 (z+5)^4$

give an electric field of zero at point (0,0,0)

8 0

3 years ago

Why does it take more time for a larger sample of water to freeze?

Stels [109]

Answer:The greater the amount of water that there is it will take longer for the water to freeze because more heat has to be dissipated into the environment

Explanation:

3 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers