No. I do not agree with Stefan. Quite the contrary. I disagree
with his description of "<span>angle of incidence" as the angle between
the surface of the mirror and the incoming ray.
The correct description of "angle of incidence" is </span><span>the angle between
the NORMAL TO the surface of the mirror and the incoming ray.
Thus, the true angle of incidence is the complement of the angle that
Stefan calculates or measures.</span>
<u>O</u><u>p</u><u>t</u><u>i</u><u>o</u><u>n</u><u> </u><u>C</u><u> </u><u>i</u><u>s</u><u> </u><u>t</u><u>h</u><u>e</u><u> </u><u>a</u><u>n</u><u>s</u><u>w</u><u>e</u><u>r</u>
<h3 /><h3><em>S</em><em>m</em><em>a</em><em>l</em><em>l</em><em> </em><em>Explanation</em><em>:</em><em>-</em></h3>
The reactants are charcoal that is unlit + oxygen and the products are the burnt charcoal + energy.
(Explanation with formula and reason attached. Check it.)

Answer:
Explanation:
kenetic is made for thermal things
Answer:
i think it is 40 kilometers in the positive direction... if not im sorry
Explanation:
The voters political opinions and what they think what is right and wrong.