Ask question

Ask question

All categories

3 years ago

14

After hearing about an accident on his normal route, Mr. Gujral checks for alternate routes to get to work. What type of circuit

does this traffic situation model?

1 answer:

shtirl [24]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

C

Explanation:

a parallel circuit because there is more than one path

You might be interested in

Two or more atoms can be held together through shared

Andre45 [30]

They can share electrons. By sharing, they form a covalent Bond and that way atoms can be stable.

4 0

4 years ago

*NEED ANSWER STAT*

tresset_1 [31]

Becomes a +1 ion for this

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Why is pseudoscience bad?

USPshnik [31]

Answer:

It is quite difficult to picture a pseudoscientist—really picture him or her over the course of a day, a year, or a whole career. What kind or research does he or she actually do, what differentiates him or her from a carpenter, or a historian, or a working scientist? In short, what do such people think they are up to?

… it is a significant point for reflection that all individuals who have been called “pseudoscientists” have considered themselves to be “scientists”, with no prefix.

The answer might surprise you. When they find time after the obligation of supporting themselves, they read papers in specific areas, propose theories, gather data, write articles, and, maybe, publish them. What they imagine they are doing is, in a word, “science”. They might be wrong about that—many of us hold incorrect judgments about the true nature of our activities—but surely it is a significant point for reflection that all individuals who have been called “pseudoscientists” have considered themselves to be “scientists”, with no prefix.

What is pseudoscience?

“Pseudoscience” is a bad category for analysis. It exists entirely as a negative attribution that scientists and non‐scientists hurl at others but never apply to themselves. Not only do they apply the term exclusively as a discrediting slur, they do so inconsistently. Over the past two‐and‐a‐quarter centuries since the term popped into the Western European languages, a great number of disparate doctrines have been categorized as sharing a core quality—pseudoscientificity, if you will—when in fact they do not. It is based on this diversity that I refer to such beliefs and theories as “fringe” rather than as “pseudo”: Their defining characteristic is the distance from the center of the mainstream scientific consensus in whichever direction, not some essential property they share.

Scholars have by and large tended to ignore fringe science as regrettable sideshows to the main narrative of the history of science, but there is a good deal to be learned by applying the same tools of analysis that have been used to understand mainstream science. This is not, I stress, to imply that there is no difference between hollow‐Earth theories and geophysics; on the contrary, the differences are the point of the analysis. Focusing on the historical and conceptual relationship between the fringe and the core of the various sciences as that blurry border has fluctuated over the centuries provides powerful analytical leverage for understanding where contemporary anti‐science movements come from and how mainstream scientists might address them.

As soon as professionalization blossomed, tagging competing theories as pseudoscientific became an important tool for scientists to define what they understood science to be

The central claim of this essay is that the concept of “pseudoscience” was called into being as the shadow of professional science. Before science became a profession—with formalized training, credentialing, publishing venues, careers—the category of pseudoscience did not exist. As soon as professionalization blossomed, tagging competing theories as pseudoscientific became an important tool for scientists to define what they understood science to be. In fact, despite many decades of strenuous effort by philosophers and historians, a precise definition of “science” remains elusive. It should be noted however that the absence of such definitional clarity has not seriously inhibited the ability of scientists to deepen our understanding of nature tremendously.

Explanation:

8 0

3 years ago

Need help 8th grade science test need help

jolli1 [7]

ANSWER: d, average speed

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

A particle has a charge of q = +4.9 μC and is located at the origin. As the drawing shows, an electric field of Ex = +242 N/C ex

irina1246 [14]

a)

$F_{E_x}=1.19\cdot 10^{-3}N$ (+x axis)

$F_{B_x}=0$

$F_{B_y}=0$

b)

$F_{E_x}=1.19\cdot 10^{-3} N$ (+x axis)

$F_{B_x}=0$

$F_{B_y}=3.21\cdot 10^{-3}N$ (+z axis)

c)

$F_{E_x}=1.19\cdot 10^{-3} N$ (+x axis)

$F_{B_x}=3.21\cdot 10^{-3} N$ (+y axis)

$F_{B_y}=3.21\cdot 10^{-3}N$ (-x axis)

Explanation:

a)

The electric force exerted on a charged particle is given by

$F=qE$

where

q is the charge

E is the electric field

For a positive charge, the direction of the force is the same as the electric field.

In this problem:

$q=+4.9\mu C=+4.9\cdot 10^{-6}C$ is the charge

$E_x=+242 N/C$ is the electric field, along the x-direction

So the electric force (along the x-direction) is:

$F_{E_x}=(4.9\cdot 10^{-6})(242)=1.19\cdot 10^{-3} N$

towards positive x-direction.

The magnetic force instead is given by

$F=qvB sin \theta$

where

q is the charge

v is the velocity of the charge

B is the magnetic field

$\theta$ is the angle between the directions of v and B

Here the charge is stationary: this means $v=0$ , therefore the magnetic force due to each component of the magnetic field is zero.

b)

In this case, the particle is moving along the +x axis.

The magnitude of the electric force does not depend on the speed: therefore, the electric force on the particle here is the same as in part a,

$F_{E_x}=1.19\cdot 10^{-3} N$ (towards positive x-direction)

Concerning the magnetic force, we have to analyze the two different fields:

- $B_x$ : this field is parallel to the velocity of the particle, which is moving along the +x axis. Therefore, $\theta=0^{\circ}$ , so the force due to this field is zero.

$- B_y$ : this field is perpendicular to the velocity of the particle, which is moving along the +x axis. Therefore, $\theta=90^{\circ}$ . Therefore, $\theta=90^{\circ}$ , so the force due to this field is:

$F_{B_y}=qvB_y$

where:

$q=+4.9\cdot 10^{-6}C$ is the charge

$v=345 m/s$ is the velocity

$B_y = +1.9 T$ is the magnetic field

Substituting,

$F_{B_y}=(4.9\cdot 10^{-6})(345)(1.9)=3.21\cdot 10^{-3} N$

And the direction of this force can be found using the right-hand rule:

- Index finger: direction of the velocity (+x axis)

- Middle finger: direction of the magnetic field (+y axis)

- Thumb: direction of the force (+z axis)

c)

As in part b), the electric force has not change, since it does not depend on the veocity of the particle:

$F_{E_x}=1.19\cdot 10^{-3}N$ (+x axis)

For the field $B_x$ , the velocity (+z axis) is now perpendicular to the magnetic field (+x axis), so the force is

$F_{B_x}=qvB_x$

And by substituting,

$F_{B_x}=(4.9\cdot 10^{-6})(345)(1.9)=3.21\cdot 10^{-3} N$

And by using the right-hand rule:

- Index finger: velocity (+z axis)

- Middle finger: magnetic field (+x axis)

- Thumb: force (+y axis)

For the field $B_y$ , the velocity (+z axis) is also perpendicular to the magnetic field (+y axis), so the force is

$F_{B_y}=qvB_y$

And by substituting,

$F_{B_y}=(4.9\cdot 10^{-6})(345)(1.9)=3.21\cdot 10^{-3} N$

And by using the right-hand rule:

- Index finger: velocity (+z axis)

- Middle finger: magnetic field (+y axis)

- Thumb: force (-y axis)

3 0

4 years ago