Answer:
Yes, it is reasonable to neglect it.
Explanation:
Hello,
In this case, a single molecule of oxygen weights 32 g (diatomic oxygen) thus, the mass of kilograms is (consider Avogadro's number):
After that, we compute the potential energy 1.00 m above the reference point:
Then, we compute the average kinetic energy at the specified temperature:
Whereas 
stands for the Avogadro's number for which we have:
In such a way, since the average kinetic energy energy is about 12000 times higher than the potential energy, it turns out reasonable to neglect the potential energy.
Regards.
Answer:
I would say be Mindful.
Explanation:
There could be like a MILLION answers for this. I think that you should personally go with your gut. That would be the best option. I think it's mindful because you really do have to be mindful when you post. Like not posting too much, not posting stuff you're uncomfortable with, not posting when on vacation, etc. So, I think you should be mindful.
Answer:
I feel it would be D. 120.00 I'm really not sure
Explanation:
Answer:
I'm not completely sure, but I believe the first and third of the three are mechanical.
Explanation:
Chemical potential isn't moving or about to go into motion. It can't be mechanical.
The wrong type of lens-Microscope, concave
Explanation:
A microscope Basically uses t<u>wo convex lenses to magnify an object, or specimen.</u>
There are 2 lenses in a microscope
- <u>Object Lens:</u>The lens that is closer to the object
- <u>Eyepiece:</u>The lens that is closer to the eye
Both the object lens and the eyepiece, is a convex lens.
