Answer:
The second projectile was 1.41 times faster than the first.
Explanation:
In the ballistic pendulum experiment, the speed (v) of the projectile is given by:
<em>where m: is the mass of the projectile, M: is the mass of the pendulum, g: is the gravitational constant and h: is the maximum height of the pendulum. </em>
To know how many times faster was the second projectile than the first, we need to take the ratio for the velocities for the projectiles 2 and 1:
(1)
<em>where m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the projectiles 1 and 2, respectively, and h₁ and h₂ are the maximum height reached by the pendulum by the projectiles 1 and 2, respectively. </em>
Since the projectile 1 has the same mass that the projectile 2, we can simplify equation (1):
Therefore, the second projectile was 1.41 times faster than the first.
I hope it helps you!
You pick a system for which no control sample exists, so that no one can show that the alleged causal relationships you assert do not, in fact, lead to the phenomenon you claim to have observed.
<u>Answer:</u> The radiation emitted will have negligible mass number.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Radioactive decay is defined as the process in which an unstable nuclei breaks down into stable nuclei via various methods.
An isotope undergoes a radioactive decay to attain stability.
There are three types of decay process, but the process in which the emitted radiation carries a charge of -1 is beta decay.
Beta decay is defined as the decay process in which a neutron gets converted to a proton and an electron. In this decay process, beta particle is emitted. The emitted particle carries a charge of -1 units and has a mass of 0 units. The released beta particle is also known as electron.
Hence, the radiation emitted will have negligible mass number.
The first successful flyby of Venus was performed by NASA's Mariner 2 spacecraft on 14 December 1962, following failed attempts by both the Soviet Union and the USA. The first successful landing was the Soviet Venera 4 lander, which touched down on the surface on 18 October 1967
Answer:
yes i think that inner planets should be explored because if we ever find new life or are able to live there then i think its worth takeing a risk.
Explanation:
