All categories

3 years ago

What did the discovery of the Cumberland Gap mean for exploration? PLEASE HELP ILL GIVE YOU BRAINLEIST!

Engineering

1 answer:

Flauer [41]3 years ago

6 0

Answer: D. Many more people crossed the mountains and settled between the Appalachians and the Mississippi

Explanation:

It was quite difficult to cross the Appalachian mountains at the time of the American colonies which led to the colonies being confined to the east of it.

This was until the late 1700s when Daniel Boone and a team of explorers heard that a path existed through the Appalachians and had been used by natives for a long time. After discovering this ''gap'' which was then named after an English prince, many more people were able to use it to settle more to the west of the continent.

You might be interested in

Using the following data, determine the percentage retained, cumulative percentage retained, and percent passing for each sieve.

vekshin1

Solution :

Sieve Size (in) Weight retain(g)

3 1.62

2 2.17

$1\frac{1}{2}$ 3.62

$\frac{3}{4}$ 2.27

$\frac{3}{8}$ 1.38

PAN 0.21

Given :

Sieve weight % wt. retain % cumulative % finer

size retained wt. retain

No. 4 59.5 10.225% 10.225% 89.775%

No. 8 86.5 14.865% 25.090% 74.91%

No. 16 138 23.7154% 48.8054% 51.2%

No. 30 127.8 21.91% 70.7154% 29.2850%

No. 50 97 16.6695% 87.3849% 12.62%

No. 100 66.8 11.4796% 98.92% 1.08%

Pan 6.3 1.08% 100% 0%

581.9 gram

Effective size = percentage finer 10% ( $$$D_{20}$ )

0.149 mm, N 100, % finer 1.08

0.297, N 50 , % finer 12.62%

x , 10%

$y-1.08 = \frac{12.62 - 1.08}{0.297 - 0.149}(x-0.149)$

$(10-1.08) \times \frac{0.297 - 0.149}{12.62 - 1.08}+ 0.149=x$

x = 0.2634 mm

Effective size, $D_{10} = 0.2643 \ mm$

Now, N 16 (1.19 mm) , 51.2%

N 8 (2.38 mm) , 74.91%

x, 60%

$60-51.2 = \frac{74.91-51.2}{2.38-1.19}(x-1.19)$

x = 1.6317 mm

$\therefore D_{60} = 1.6317 \ mm$

Uniformity co-efficient = $\frac{D_{60}}{D_{10}}$

$Cu= \frac{1.6317}{0.2643}$

Cu = 6.17

Now, fineness modulus = $\frac{\Sigma \text{\ cumulative retain on all sieve }}{100}$

$=\frac{\Sigma (10.225+25.09+48.8054+70.7165+87.39+98.92+100)}{100}$

= 4.41

which lies between No. 4 and No. 5 sieve [4.76 to 4.00]

So, fineness modulus = 4.38 mm

7 0

3 years ago

For the pipe-fl ow-reducing section of Fig. P3.54, D 1 5 8 cm, D 2 5 5 cm, and p 2 5 1 atm. All fl uids are at 20 8 C. If V 1 5

bonufazy [111]

Answer:

The total force resisted by the flange bolts is 163.98 N

Explanation:

Solution

The first step is to find the pipe cross section at the inlet section

Now,

A₁ = π /4 D₁²

D₁ = diameter of the pipe at the inlet section

Now we insert 8 cm for D₁ which gives us A₁ = π /4 D (8)²

=50.265 cm² * ( 1 m²/100² cm²)

= 5.0265 * 10^⁻³ m²

Secondly, we find cross section area of the pipe at the inlet section

A₂ = π /4 D₂²

D₂ = diameter of the pipe at the inlet section

Now we insert 5 cm for D₁ which gives us A₁ = π /4 D (5)²

= 19.63 cm² * ( 1 m²/100² cm²)

= 1.963 * 10^⁻³ m²

Now,

we write down the conversation mass relation which is stated as follows:

Q₁ = Q₂

Where Q₁ and Q₂ are both the flow rate at the exist and inlet.

We now insert A₁V₁ for Q₁ and A₂V₂ for Q₂

So,

V₁ and V₂ are defined as the velocities at the inlet and exit

We now insert 5.0265 * 10^⁻³ m² for A₁ 5 m/s for V₁ and 1.963 * 10^⁻³ m² for A₂

= 5.0265 * 5 = 1.963 * V₂

V₂ = 12.8 m/s

Note: Kindly find an attached copy of the part of the solution to the given question below

8 0

3 years ago

A pitfall cited in Section 1.10 is expecting to improve the overall performance of a computer by improving only one aspect of th

Oxana [17]

Answer:

a) For this case the new time to run the FP operation would be reduced 20% so that means 100-20% =80% from the original time

$(1-0.2)*70 s =56s$

The reduction on this case is $70-56 s=14s$

And since the new total time would be given by $250-14=236 s$

b) For this case the total time is reduced 20% so that means that the new total time would be (1-0.2)=0.8 times the original total time $(1-0.2) *250s =200 s$

The original time for INT operations is calculated as:

$250 = 70+85+40 +t_{INT}$

$t_{INT}=55s$

For this part the only time that was changed is assumed the INT operations so then:

$200 = 70+85+40 \Delta t_{INT}$

And then: $\Delta t_{INT}= 200-70-85-40=5 s$

c) A reduction of the total time implies that the total time would be 205 s from the results above. And the time for FP is 70, for L/S is 85 and for INT operations is 55 s, so then if we add 70+85+55=210s, we see that 210>205 so then we cannot reduce the total time 20% just reducing the branch intructions.

Explanation:

From the info given we know that a computer running a program that requires 250 s, with 70 s spent executing FP instructions, 85 s executed L/S instructions and 40 s spent executing branch instructions.

Part 1

For this case the new time to run the FP operation would be reduced 20% so that means 100-20% =80% from the original time

$(1-0.2)*70 s =56s$

The reduction on this case is $70-56 s=14s$

And since the new total time would be given by $250-14=236 s$

Part 2

For this case the total time is reduced 20% so that means that the new total time would be (1-0.2)=0.8 times the original total time $(1-0.2) *250s =200 s$

The original time for INT operations is calculated as:

$250 = 70+85+40 +t_{INT}$

$t_{INT}=55s$

For this part the only time that was changed is assumed the INT operations so then:

$200 = 70+85+40 \Delta t_{INT}$

And then: $\Delta t_{INT}= 200-70-85-40=5 s$

And we can quantify the decrease using the relative change:

$\% Change = \frac{5s}{55 s} *100 = 9.09\%$ of reduction

Part 3

A reduction of the total time implies that the total time would be 205 s from the results above. And the time for FP is 70, for L/S is 85 and for INT operations is 55 s, so then if we add 70+85+55=210s, we see that 210>205 so then we cannot reduce the total time 20% just reducing the branch intructions.

8 0

3 years ago

The loneliest people are to kindest

valkas [14]

Answer:

The most damaged people are the wisest is a fact

Explanation:

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which statement most accurately describes Pascal's law?

marin [14]