Which of the following is NOT a breach of Netiquette?

A 35kg block of mass is subjected to forces F1=100N and F2=75N at agive angle thetha= 20° and 35° respectively.find the distance

Talja [164]

Answer:

21 m

Explanation:

Since F₁ = 100 N and acts at an angle of 20° to the horizontal, it has horizontal component F₁' = 100cos20° = 93.97 N and vertical component F₁" = 100sin20° = 34.2 N.

Also, F₂ = 75 N and acts at an angle of -35° to the horizontal, it has horizontal component F₂' = 75cos(-35°) = 75cos35° = 61.44 N and vertical component F₂" = 75sin(-35°) = -75sin35° = -43.02 N

The resultant horizontal force F₃' = F₁' + F₂' = 93.97 N + 61.44 N = 155.41 N

The resultant vertical force F₃" = F₁" + F₂" = 34.2 N - 43.02 N = -8.82 N

If f is the frictional force on the block, the net horizontal force on the block is F = F₃' - f.

Since f = μN where μ = coefficient of kinetic friction = 0.4 and N = normal force on the block.

For the block to be in contact with the surface, the vertical forces on the block must balance.

Since the normal force, N must equal the resultant vertical force F₃" and the weight, W = mg of the object for a zero net vertical force,

N = mg + F₃" (since both the weight and the resultant vertical force act downwards)

N = mg + F₃"

Since m = mass of block = 35 kg and g = acceleration due to gravity = 9.8 m/s² and F₃" = 8.82 N

So,

N = mg + F₃"

N = 35 kg × 9.8 m/s² + 8.82 N

N = 343 N + 8.82 N

N = 351.82 N

So, the net horizontal force F = F₃' - f.

F = 155.41 N - 0.4 × 351.82 N

F = 155.41 N - 140.728 N

F = 14.682 N

Since F = ma, where a = acceleration of block,

a = F/m = 14.682 N/35 kg = 0.42 m/s²

To find the distance the block moved, x we use the equation

x = ut + 1/2at² where u = initial speed of block = 0 m/s, t = time = 10 s and a = acceleration of block = 0.42 m/s²

Substituting the values of the variables into the equation, we have

x = ut + 1/2at²

x = 0 m/s × 10 s + 1/2 × 0.42 m/s² × (10 s)²

x = 0 m + 1/2 × 0.42 m/s² × 100 s²

x = 0.21 m/s² × 100 s²

x = 21 m

So, the distance moved by the block is 21 m.

4 0

3 years ago

A 20.0 µF capacitor is charged to a potential difference of 800 V. The terminals of the charged capacitor are then connected to

Sergeu [11.5K]

Answer:

a) Q_initial = 16 * 10^-3 C

b) V_1 = V_2 = (16/3) * 10^2 V

c) E = 64/15 J

d) dE = 32/15 J of decrease

Explanation:

Given:

- Capacitor 1, C_1 = 20.0 uF

- Capacitor 2, C_2 = 10.0 uF

- Charged with P.d V = 800 V

Find:

a) the original charge of the system,

(b) the ﬁnal potential difference across each capacitor

(c) the ﬁnal energy of the system

(d) the decrease in energy when the capacitors are connected.

Solution:

a)

- The initial charge in the circuit is the one carried by the first charged capacitor.

Q_initial = C_1*V

Q_initial = 20*10^-6 * 800

Q_initial = 16 * 10^-3 C

b)

- After charging the other capacitor, we know that the total charge is conserved among two capacitor:

Q_initial = Q_1 + Q_2

- We also know that potential difference across two capacitor is also same.

V_1 = V_2 = Q_1 / C_1 = Q_2 / C_2

- Using the two equations and solve for charge Q_2:

Q_2 = Q_1*C_2/C_1

Q_2 = Q_1*10/20 = 0.5*Q_1

- using conservation of charge:

Q_initial = 1.5*Q_1

Q_1 = 16*10^-3 / 1.5 = 10.67*10^-3 C

- Hence the Voltage across each capacitor is:

V_2 = V_1 = Q_1 / C_1

= 10.67*10^-3 / 20*10^-6

= (16/3) * 10^2 V

c)

- The energy in the system is:

E = 0.5*C_eq*V^2

Where, C_eq is the equivalent capacitance of paralle circuit.

E = 0.5*(20+10)*10^-6 *((16/3) * 10^2)^2

E = 64/15 J

d)

- The decrease in energy of the capacitors is:

dE = E_initial - E_final

Where, E_initial is due to charging of the C_1 only:

dE = 0.5*10^-6*20*800^2 - (64/15)

dE = 32/5 - 64/15 = 32/15 J

5 0

3 years ago

REVIEW QUESTIONS

babunello [35]

Snap rings, and bearings can be used to keep a gear on a shaft, hope this helps!!

5 0

3 years ago

Every two years or at recommendation by manufacturer.

9966 [12]

Answer:

Manufacturer’s Recommendations means the instructions, procedures, and recommendations which are issued by the manufacturer of any equipment used at the Facility relating to the operation, maintenance, or repair of such equipment, and any revisions or updates thereto from time to time issued by the manufacturer.

Manufacturer’s Recommendations means the instructions, procedures and recommendations which are issued by any manufacturer of the Equipment relating to the operation, maintenance and repair of the Equipment and any revisions to such instructions, procedures and recommendations agreed to by any manufacturer of the Equipment and which are valid at the time such operation, repair and maintenance is being carried out.

Manufacturer’s Recommendations means the written instructions, procedures and recommendations which are issued by the original equipment manufacturer of any plant or equipment used at the Utility Plant relating to the operation, maintenance and repair of such plant or equipment and any revisions thereto issued by the manufacturer, which are valid and applicable at the time such operation, maintenance or repair is undertaken. Notwithstanding the above, Manufacturer’s Recommendations shall not include any instructions, procedures or recommendations of a manufacturer of any plant or equipment that the Owner and the Operator have agreed in writing to exclude from this definition or have agreed in writing should not be followed.

Explanation:

4 0

3 years ago

Mahamad Siddiqui sent false emails and letters of recommendation on behalf of individuals without their permission to nominate h

shusha [124]

Mahamad Siddiqui sent false emails and letters of recommendation on behalf of individuals without their permission to nominate himself for the Waterman Award at the National Science Foundation. His earlier emails were offered where he had solicited letters were offered as evidence. Siddiqui claimed that content of earlier emails was hearsay. Do the earlier emails come in is given below

Explanation:

1.Mohamed Siddiqui appeals his convictions for fraud and false statements to a federal agency, and obstruction in connection with a federal investigation. Siddiqui challenges the district court's admission into evidence of e-mail and foreign depositions.

2.On February 18, 1997, Jodi Saltzman, a special agent with the NSF interviewed Siddiqui at Siddiqui's office at the University of South Alabama. During the interview, Siddiqui signed a statement admitting that he had nominated himself for the Waterman Award, but that he had permission from Yamada and von Gunten to submit forms on their behalf. Siddiqui also acknowledged in the statement that Westrick had recommended Siddiqui for a different award, the PECASE Award, but that Siddiqui had changed the wording of the letter to apply to the Waterman Award. Siddiqui was indicted on April 29, 1997.

3.Siddiqui opposed the taking of the depositions on the grounds that the witnesses' personal presence at trial was necessary, and that Indian travel restrictions for its citizens residing abroad prevented him from traveling to Japan and Switzerland. Specifically, Siddiqui asserted that because of religious persecution in India his travel to Japan or Switzerland related to the criminal action would put his family members still living in India at risk. The magistrate judge ruled that the government had carried its burden of showing that Yamada and von Gunten would be unavailable to appear at trial, and instructed that Siddiqui's fear of obtaining a travel visa from India because of the threat of persecution of family members should not preclude the taking of the foreign depositions.

4.Yamada's deposition was taken in Japan on March 6, 1998. At government expense, Siddiqui's counsel attended the deposition and cross-examined the witness, but was not in telephonic contact with Siddiqui during the deposition. Yamada testified that on February 1, 1997, she received an e-mail stating that if she received a phone call from the NSF to “please tell good words about me.” Yamada testified that she knew the e-mail was from Siddiqui because the name on the e-mail had Siddiqui's sender address, and it ended with the name “Mo” which Siddiqui had previously told her was his nickname, and which he had used in previous e-mail.

5.Yamada later admitted to Saltzman that she had not given Siddiqui permission to sign, but had made the earlier representation because she thought Siddiqui would go to jail.

6.During cross-examination of Yamada at the deposition, Siddiqui's counsel introduced an e-mail from Yamada to Siddiqui. This e-mail contained the same e-mail address for Siddiqui as the e-mail received by Yamada and von Gunten apparently from Siddiqui.

7.Von Gunten's video deposition was taken in Switzerland. At government expense, Siddiqui's counsel attended the deposition and cross-examined von Gunten. During the deposition, Siddiqui was in communication with his counsel by telephone. Von Gunten testified at the deposition that he had not submitted a letter of recommendation in favor of Siddiqui for the Waterman Award, and that he had not given Siddiqui permission to submit such a letter in his name.

8 0

3 years ago