Splitting<span> atoms. 'Fission' is another word for </span>splitting<span>. The process of </span>splitting<span> a nucleus is called nuclear fission. ... For fission to happen, the </span>uranium-235<span> or plutonium-239 nucleus must first absorb a neutron.</span>
His total displacement from his original position is -1 m
We know that total displacement of an object from a position x to a position x', d = final position - initial position.
d = x' - x
If we assume the lad's initial position in front of her house is x = 0 m. The lad then moves towards the positive x-axis, 5 m. He then ends up at x' = 5 m. He then finally goes back 6 m.
Since displacement = final position - initial position, and his displacement is d' = -6 m (since he moves in the negative x - direction or moves back) from his initial position of x' = 5 m.
His final position, x" after moving back 6 m is gotten from
x" - x' = -6 m
x" = -6 + x'
x" = -6 + 5
x" = -1 m
Thus, his total displacement from his original position is
d = final position - initial position
d = x" - x
d = -1 m - 0 m
d = -1 m
So, his total displacement from his original position is -1 m
Learn more about displacement here:
brainly.com/question/17587058
Answer:
Thus, if field were sampled at same distance, the field due to short wire is greater than field due to long wire.
Explanation:
The magnetic field, B of long straight wire can be obtained by applying ampere's law
I is here current, and r's the distance from the wire to the field of measurement.
The magnetic field is obviously directly proportional to the current wire. From this expression.
As the resistance of the long cable is proportional to the cable length, the short cable becomes less resilient than the long cable, so going through the short cable (where filled with the same material) is a bigger amount of currents. If the field is measured at the same time, the field is therefore larger than the long wire because of the short wire.
This graph shows data up to about 2010. So it couldn't have been drawn before 2010. OF COURSE the data from only 10 years earlier was more reliable than the data that was 120 years old ! It wasn't even measured the same way back then as it is now.
