For your first question, that equation only works if your situation is occurring at a constant temperature. Your original question is such a situation - everything occurs at 298.15 K. Therefore, you can use this value in the equation to calculate work.
For your second question, Charles' Law describes how the volume of gas changes as you heat or cool it, PROVIDED PRESSURE AND MOLES OF GAS REMAIN CONSTANT THE WHOLE TIME. In your original question above, temperature stays constant while volume changes. However, what they don't tell you is that this necessarily requires a change in either pressure or moles of gas. Because the question works with the same sample the of gas the whole time (i.e. moles are constant), it is pressure that is changing (and this change will occur according to Boyle's Law, since temperature and moles are held constant).
Hope that clarifies things!
Answer:
During the debate, a colleague on the negative side argued that bullies do not pick on students based on clothing. Uniforms won’t protect students from bullying because clothing isn’t the only thing that bullies look at. Bullies may look at skin color or even the culture of a particular student.
Explanation:
Answer: Option (c) is the kinetic energy.
Explanation:
The kinetic energy present within the particles of a substance is known as thermal energy. Measure of average kinetic energy of particles of a substance is known as temperature.
Whereas heat defined as the transfer of thermal energy from a hot object to a cold object.
Enthalpy is defined as the heat gained or lost by a substance in a chemical reaction.
Thermodynamics is the study of relation between heat and work with chemical or physical changes.
Thus, we can conclude that a measure of kinetic energy of particle motion within a substance is temperature.
Answer:
Explanation:
ratio of moles of N and O in molecule =
N / O = 2.17 / 4.35
1/2
empirical formula = NO₂
<span>There are pros and cons as to whether CCA-treated (pressure-treated) wood should be removed from existing structures, and both sides are subjective.
Some of the arguments for leaving it include:
*When burned, the wood can release dangerous, and sometimes, lethal fumes.
*If buried in a landfill, the chemicals can soak into the ground and eventually contaminate ground water.
*Removing it can expose people to arsenic
*It is costly to remove an existing infrastructure that may or may not be harming people
*Studies conducted within the past decade have determined structures containing CCA-treated wood pose no hazard
*Studies also concluded that children who played on CCA-treated playgrounds were exposed to arsenic levels lower than those that naturally occur in drinking water
Some of the arguments for removing it include:
*The EPA determined that some children could face higher cancer risks from exposure to CCA-treated wood
*If removed, it will need to be disposed of and, as discussed above, that creates another set of problems that could affect a community's health.
A possible solution is to leave existing CCA-treated wood in place but seek viable, safe alternatives for future structures.</span>
