The two flaws in
her experiment’s design are
<span>- She introduced at least one confounding variable.</span>
<span>- She tried to test multiple hypotheses at a time</span>
In the above mentioned experiment she had to have four samples to prove
four hypotheses, each one separately and not to mix two hypotheses in an alone
sample, that what it brings as consequence is the confusion.
The heat gun<span> obviously wins this round. Master Appliance </span>heat guns<span> can reach temperatures of up to 1,000 Fahrenheit. A handheld </span>blow dryer<span> might reach 131 degrees Fahrenheit. A </span>hair dryer<span> gets hot enough to burn skin, but not hot enough to complete serious tasks like striping paint and removing serious. By the way I got this from google.</span>
Answer:
Efficiency = 52%
Explanation:
Given:
First stage
heat absorbed, Q₁ at temperature T₁ = 500 K
Heat released, Q₂ at temperature T₂ = 430 K
and the work done is W₁
Second stage
Heat released, Q₂ at temperature T₂ = 430 K
Heat released, Q₃ at temperature T₃ = 240 K
and the work done is W₂
Total work done, W = W₁ + W₂
Now,
The efficiency is given as:
or
Work done = change in heat
thus,
W₁ = Q₁ - Q₂
W₂ = Q₂ - Q₃
Thus,
or
or
also,
or
thus,
thus,
or
or
Efficiency = 52%
Answer: the higher the kinetic energy
Explanation:
Answer: it’s A and B
Explanation: everyone else on this post was giving you the wrong answer.