Answer:
Explanation:La ecuación de Van der Waals es una ecuación de estado de un fluido compuesto de partículas con un tamaño no despreciable y con fuerzas intermoleculares, como las fuerzas de Van der Waals. La ecuación, cuyo origen se remonta a 1873, debe su nombre a Johannes van der Waals, quien recibió el premio Nobel en 1910 por su trabajo en la ecuación de estado para gases y líquidos, la cual está basada en una modificación de la ley de los gases ideales para que se aproxime de manera más precisa al comportamiento de los gases reales al tener en cuenta su tamaño no nulo y la atracción entre sus partículas.
Nitrogen and carbon dioxide
The force on the tool is entirely in the negative-y direction.
So no work is done during any moves in the x-direction.
The work will be completely defined by
(Force) x (distance in the y-direction),
and it won't matter what route the tool follows to get anywhere.
Only the initial and final y-coordinates matter.
We know that F = - 2.85 y². (I have no idea what that ' j ' is doing there.)
Remember that 'F' is pointing down.
From y=0 to y=2.40 is a distance of 2.40 upward.
Sadly, since the force is not linear over the distance, I don't think
we can use the usual formula for Work = (force) x (distance).
I think instead we'll need to integrate the force over the distance,
and I can't wait to see whether I still know how to do that.
Work = integral of (F·dy) evaluated from 0 to 2.40
= integral of (-2.85 y² dy) evaluated from 0 to 2.40
= (-2.85) · integral of (y² dy) evaluated from 0 to 2.40 .
Now, integral of (y² dy) = 1/3 y³ .
Evaluated from 0 to 2.40 , it's (1/3 · 2.40³) - (1/3 · 0³)
= 1/3 · 13.824 = 4.608 .
And the work = (-2.85) · the integral
= (-2.85) · (4.608)
= - 13.133 .
-- There are no units in the question (except for that mysterious ' j ' after the 'F',
which totally doesn't make any sense at all).
If the ' F ' is newtons and the 2.40 is meters, then the -13.133 is joules.
-- The work done by the force is negative, because the force points
DOWN but we lifted the tool UP to 2.40. Somebody had to provide
13.133 of positive work to lift the tool up against the force, and the force
itself did 13.133 of negative work to 'allow' the tool to move up.
-- It doesn't matter whether the tool goes there along the line x=y , or
by some other route. WHATEVER the route is, the work done by ' F '
is going to total up to be -13.133 joules at the end of the day.
As I hinted earlier, the last time I actually studied integration was in 1972,
and I haven't really used it too much since then. But that's my answer
and I'm stickin to it. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and I hope somebody
will show me where I'm wrong.
The acceleration of gravity on Earth is 9.8 m/s² .
The speed of a falling object keeps increasing smoothly,
in such a way that the speed is always 9.8 m/s faster than
it was one second earlier.
If you 'drop' the penny, then it starts out with zero speed.
If you also start the clock at the same instant, then
After 1.10 sec, Speed = (1.10 x 9.8) = 10.78 meters/sec
After 1.85 sec, Speed = (1.85 x 9.8) = 18.13 meters/sec
But you want this second one given in a different unit of speed.
OK then:
= (18.13 meter/sec) x (3,600 sec/hr) x (1 mile/1609.344 meter)
= (18.13 x 3,600 / 1609.344) (mile/hr) = 40.56 mph (rounded)
We did notice that in an apparent effort to make the question
sound more erudite and sophisticated, you decided to phrase
it in terms of 'velocity'. We can answer it in those terms, if we
ASSUME that there is no wind, and the penny therefore doesn't
acquire any horizontal component of motion on its way down.
With that assumption in force, we are able to state unequivocally
and without fear of contradiction that each 'speed' described above ...
with the word 'downward' appended to it ... does become a 'velocity'.
Answer:
The answer is positively B.
There are so many base pairs that there are individual differences.
Confirmed by my Forensics test today.
Explanation:
