Answer:
490 in^3 = 8.03 L
Explanation:
Given:
The engine displacement = 490 in^3
= 490 in³
To determine the engine piston displacement in liters L;
(NOTE: Both in^3 (in³) and L are units of volume). Hence, to find the engine piston displacement in liters (L), we will convert in^3 to liters (L)
First, we will convert in³ to cm³
Since 1 in = 2.54 cm
∴ 1 in³ = 16.387 cm³
If 1 in³ = 16.387 cm³
Then 490 in³ = (490 in³ × 16.387 cm³) / 1 in³ = 8029.63 cm³
∴ 490 in³ = 8029.63 cm³
Now will convert cm³ to dm³
(NOTE: 1 L = 1 dm³)
1 cm = 1 × 10⁻² m = 1 × 10⁻¹ dm
∴ 1 cm³ = 1 × 10⁻⁶ m³ = 1 × 10⁻³ dm³
If 1 cm³ = 1 × 10⁻³ dm³
Then, 8029.63 cm³ = (8029.63 cm³ × 1 × 10⁻³ dm³) / 1 cm³ = 8.02963 dm³
≅ 8.03 dm³
∴ 8029.63 cm³ = 8.03 dm³
Hence, 490 in³ = 8029.63 cm³ = 8.03 dm³
Since 1L = 1 dm³
∴ 8.03 dm³ = 8.03 L
Hence, 490 in³ = 8.03 L
Answer:
The correct answer is a scientific law.
Explanation:
The laws of science or scientific laws refer to the statements, which predict or illustrate an array of natural processes. It is a statement based on observations or spontaneous experiments, which illustrate some characteristics of the natural world.
The term law exhibits different uses in various circumstances, that is, across all the branches of natural science. The laws are formulated through data and can be further created via mathematics, in all the conditions, they are indirectly or directly based on empirical evidence. The scientific laws recapitulate the outcomes of observations or experiments, generally within some point of application.
Assuming that the reactants are:
(NH4)2SO4 (aq) + Ba(NO3)2 (aq)
and the products are:
BaSO4 (s) + 2NH4NO3 (aq),
then you will have to determine which product is insoluble. You should have access to solubility rules to help you determine this.
According to the solubility rules, the following elements are considered insoluble when paired with SO4:
Sr^2+, Ba^2+, Pb^2+, Ag^2+, and Ca^2+
Therefore, the precipitate will be BaSO4 (s).
To know this you pretty much do have to kind of memorize a few electronegativities. I don't recall ever getting a table of electronegativities on an exam.
From the structure, you have:
I remember the following electronegativities most because they are fairly patterned:
EN
H
=
2.1
EN
C
=
2.5
EN
N
=
3.0
EN
O
=
3.5
EN
F
=
4.0
EN
Cl
=
3.5
Notice how carbon through fluorine go in increments of
~
0.5
. I believe Pauling made it that way when he determined electronegativities in the '30s.
Δ
EN
C
−
Cl
=
1.0
Δ
EN
C
−
H
=
0.4
Δ
EN
C
−
C
=
0.0
Δ
EN
C
−
O
=
1.0
Δ
EN
O
−
H
=
1.4
So naturally, with the greatest electronegativity difference of
4.0
−
2.5
=
1.5
, the
C
−
F
bond is most polar, i.e. that bond's electron distribution is the most drawn towards the more electronegative compound as compared to the rest.
When the electron distribution is polarized and drawn towards a more electronegative atom, the less electronegative atom has to move inwards because its nucleus was previously favorably attracted to the electrons from the other atom.
That means generally, the greater the electronegativity difference between two atoms is, the shorter you can expect the bond to be, insofar as the electronegative atom is the same size as another comparable electronegative atom.
However, examining actual data, we would see that on average, in conditions without other bond polarizations occuring:
r
C
−
Cl
≈
177 pm
r
C
−
C
≈
154 pm
r
C
−
O
≈
143 pm
r
C
−
F
≈
135 pm
r
C
−
H
≈
109 pm
r
O
−
H
≈
96 pm
So it is not necessarily the least electronegativity difference that gives the longest bond.
Therefore, you cannot simply consider electronegativity. Examining the radii of the atoms, you should notice that chlorine is the biggest atom in the compound.
r
Cl
≈
79 pm
r
C
≈
70 pm
r
H
≈
53 pm
r
O
≈
60 pm
So assuming the answer is truly
C
−
C
, what would have to hold true is that:
The
C
−
F
bond polarization makes the carbon more electropositive (which is true).
The now more electropositive carbon wishes to attract bonding pairs from chlorine closer, thereby shortening the
C
−
Cl
bond, and potentially the
C
−
H
bond (which is probably true).
The shortening of the
C
−
Cl
bond is somehow enough to be shorter than the
C
−
C
bond (this is debatable).
