Answer : Option D) 
Explanation : When a positron is getting absorbed it means it will be 
so, the 
will get converted;
So, the whole reaction will be;
+ ----> .
This will convert the whole element of Cu will get changed into Zn. As, it absorbs by the positron, the atomic number gets increased from 29 to 30.
Answer:
In the third tube, the concentration is 0.16 ug/mL
Explanation:
In the first step, the solution is diluted by 5. Then, the concentration will be
20 ug/mL / 5 = 4 ug/mL
Then, in the second step this 4 ug / ml solution is diluted by a factor of five again:
4 ug /ml / 5 = 0.8 ug/mL
This solution is then diluted again by 5 and the concentration in the third tube will be then:
0.8 ug/mL / 5 = <u>0.16 ug/mL </u>
<u />
Another way to calculate this is to divide the original concentration by the dilution factor ( 5 in this case) elevated to the number of dilutions. In this case:
Concentration in the third tube = 20 ug/mL / 5³ = 0.16 ug/mL
Answer : The correct option is "record 10.00 ml in the notebook after using it."
Explanation :
If an instrument has "10 mL TD" written on it, that means the instrument is meant To Deliver (TD) 10 mL of volume.
Therefore the option that has 5.00 mL is not correct.
"+/- 0.01 mL" indicates the precision of the instrument. We know that no measurement is 100% accurate and there is always some uncertainty associated with any measurement.
Here, 0.01 indicates the uncertainty in the measurement.
When we have 0.01 mL , that means the instrument can record precisely to the hundredths place.
The more the significant figures, the greater is the accuracy of the measurement.
Therefore when we use an instrument that has "+/- 0.01 mL" written on it, we should record the reading as 10.00 mL
Answer:
- First choice: <em>The hypothesis is revised and another experiment is conducted. </em>
<em></em>
Explanation:
Citing myself from brainly.com/question/12687503, a hypothesis is a reasonable explanation of a phenomenon, which tries to relate a cause with an effect, and that can be testable.
The outcome of the test can either support the hypothesis or reject it.
Both results, either supporting or rejecting the hypothesis, are good for science and help to the development of the scientific knowledge.
Hence, the fact that the data from an experiment do not support the original hypothesis is not a bad thing. The same scientist or other from the scientific community will be able to revise the hypothesis and conduct another experiment, as the first answer choice proposes.
The data are supposed to be correct, unless the analysys, not the conclusion, suggests some errors in the measures or collection of the data. So, it is not the fact that the data do not support the original hypothesis what conducts to run the experiment again (second choice is wrong, then).
The revision of the data to support the hypothesis (third choice) or adjustment of the data to match the observations (fourth hypothesis) are contrary to good practices, so they are also discarded.
A football field is 0.001 km in length. Since the 1 is in the thousands place, you’d have to run back and forth (0.001 km) 1000 times.
0.001 x 1000 = 1
