Factual-description-examples

Best Results From Yahoo Answers


From Yahoo Answers

Question:so its an evaporation and intermolecular attraction lab. i have the initial and final temperatures. and the compounds are water, acetone, ethanol, 1-butanol. hxane, and heptan. how would i find the molecular mass of these compounds? and how do i find the charge? is the charge same as a hydrogen bond? THANKS. how do i find the charge for each compound that is..

Answers:It has nothing to do with the temperatures. Molecular mass is defined as the sum of the masses of the atoms. We'll use water as an example. Water has the chemical formula H2O there are 2 hydrogens and one oxygen. hydrogen (from the periodic table) has a mass of 1.001g/mol. you have two of them in oxygen. Oxygen has a mass of ~ 16.000g/mol. You have 2 hydrogens and one oxygen making one molecule of water. 16+2(1.001)= 18.002g/mol. So now you have the molar mass. The molecular mass is found by taking the molar mass and converting. 18.002g/mol = 1mol/6.0221415 10^23 so you divide 18.002g by avogadro's number... and get the mass of one single molecule. and you get 2.99e-29 g/mol. The charge on water, or most compounds is always 0, they are neutral. There are some exceptions though. If you have any more questions, feel free to email me.

Question:

Answers:These are the 6 must rudimentaries that define living things. Ally answered one part, so I'm covering up what she didn't answer ;) Theme #1 - Cells All living things are composed of one or more cells. Different types of cells have different jobs within the organism. Each life form begins from one cell, which then will undergo mitotic division.After this has happened several times, differentiation is undergone, when the cells change so that they are not the same thing anymore. Then they are used to begin to put together the final organism, some cells, for example, as the eyes, some as the heart, etc. The only arguable exception to this is viruses. They are not composed of cells, but are said to be living. Theme #2 - Organization Complex organization patterns are found in all living organisms. They arrange themselves on very small levels, grouping like things together. On larger levels, they become visible. This also has to do with differentiation, as the cells are organized in a manner that makes sense for the organism after they change to what they ll be in the final organism. Theme #3 - Energy Use All organisms use energy. The sum of the chemical energy they use is called metabolism. This energy is used to carry out everything they do. Autotrophs (plants) use energy from the sun for photosynthesis, to make their own food (glucose). Heterotrophs (animals and humans) must ingest food for this purpose. Theme #4 - Homeostasis All organisms have stable internal conditions which must be maintained in order to remain alive. These include temperature, water content, heartbeat, and other such things. In a way, this has to do with energy use, because a certain level of energy must be kept within the body at all times. For this, obviously, humans must then ingest food on a regular basis. Not all conditions are for the body to maintain itself; though most are. Theme #5 - Growth All organisms grow and change. Cells divide to form new, identical cells. Differentiation happens, as well, when cells mutate into other types of cells, making a more complex organism. Organisms growing, changing, and becoming more complex is called development. Single-celled organisms do grow as well, but they will only become slightly larger this is nearly unmeasurable. Theme #6 - Reproduction All organisms reproduce in order to continue the species' life. This is combining genetic information (in sexual reproduction) or splitting into two organisms (in asexual reproduction) in order to create another of the same species. In sexual reproduction, the new organism will have some characteristics from the mother, and some from father. It may look like either of them, or it may not. In asexual reproduction, the new organism is an exact copy of the first. Sometimes, not every member of a species is able to reproduce.

Question:

Answers:The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory. I. The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. II. Testing hypotheses As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories. If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics. We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws. Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1. III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day. Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way. Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers." In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have differe


From Youtube

Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and Application (example)

A Brief Description of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and 1 example of an application. Now in 1000080p HD

My element collection box (With brief explanations on how to make yourn own in the description)

This is my "portable" element collection, and my main one. All the other things I post videos off is just for the pleasure of knowing what's in them/it... And to show the YouTube community what the things at home may contan in high levels. CD/DVD-RW for example... They contains a tellurium salt..! BTW It's 100% homemade! (I bought the nails, screws, material and the vials, but it's hand made and hand painted..) HOW TO MAKE YOUR OWN!!!! 1 Get a wood board 18mm thick. 2 Make templates from these measurements. In millimeters, =Diameter of holes (Vial diameter + 2mm) Hole board and bottom board: (1+1) Length (L) x18+15mmx19 Width (W) x10+15mmx19 Long side (2) (L+(18mmX2))X(Height of vial+20mm+18mm) Short side (2) Wx(Height of vials+20mm+18mm) Lid Long side in mm X Short side + (18mmX2) 3 Place the templates as efficient as you can on the wooden board, and cut out. 4 - Assembly: 4.1 Make the bottom of the case by mounting the sides to the bottom plate. Nail together with brass nails to get a nicer finish. 4.2 Draw on the markings for where the holes are going to get drilled. 15mm, diameter of hole, 15mm, diameter of hole and so on is an easy way of making a grid for placing the holes. 4.3 Drill holes. Mount the hole plate. Take the height of the vial, subtract the cap and 18mm, then you have the supports heights. Don't mount the plate in permanently, in case you drop something into the holes... Mount the lid with hinges, and mount a lock if you want that... THIS IS A BRIEF ...

___GAIAONLINE GOLD HACK! (ON A NEW/MULE ACCOUNT) NOV. 5 2010 UPDATE! [READ DESCRIPTION!]___

Click More Info^^ I'M ON EVERYDAY FROM 3:30 Pm Eastern time to 11:00 Pm Eastern time. MAIL ME IN THOSE BUSINESS TIMES! Last Update: November 5th 2010. THIS IS THE RESULTS OF THE HELL-OF-MIL.SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL. :) READ DESCRIPTION BELOW TO GET HELL-OF-MIL, CLICK MORE INFO Here's a list of the working phone services: AT&T, Nextel, Boost Mobile, Sprint, T-Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Alltel, Verizon Wireless. Last Year Served:2109 This Year Served:490 (Still Counting) Updating every 10 through 400 people. ------------------------------------------------- THE NEW GAIA CELL PHONE HELL-OF-MIL HACK HAS BEEN CREATED. READ THE REST OF THE DESCRIPTION TO FIND OUT HOW. PREPARE TO GET 40800000 THREW 99040000 GOLD 3 TIMES. YOU CAN EVEN USE A MULE** ACCOUNT! WHAT YOU DO! READ VVV 1st- Send me a youtube message with, any body paragraph saying your mule username, your mule password and your cell phone number. Example. ---------------------------- Mule username-MoreKilo Mule password-Gold123 Cell -(216-345-6789) Zip code -(54321) Phone Service -(Self Explanatory) --------------------------- Please include the area code. 2nd- You must be logged off Gaia or it wont work. I will hack and send a text to your phone, it will include; a 4 digit pin code, and another code (+STDMSGCHGSAPPLY.) That + code will make the fee, free. 3rd- You will send me another Youtube message telling me the 4 digit pin when you receive the text. (Don't worry about the cost, it will be free because of the code i ...

10 point PPV rating system- FLAWED EXPLANATIONS (read description box)

This is the PPV ratings system for an "anonymous Youtuber" here in the YWC. Look at how flawed some of the explantions are for their ratings system. PPV Rating System: 0: If neccessary, superglue your eyes shut to avoid mental scars for life. 1: Unbelievably horrid show, stay very far away. 2: A total and complete disaster of a PPV 3: They make people pay money to see THAT? 4: A god awful show but there are maybe one or two good matches you might wanna see. 5: A bad show but a couple matches turned out alright. 6: A mediocre show but poor by PPV standards, there are some good matches but in the end they couldn't save the show. 7: A good, solid show that won't waste your time but isn't a classic. Pretty entertaining but it won't be remembered for too long. 8: A great PPV that I definitely recommend. 9: An excellent show that is a must-buy. 10: FLAWLESS. It is NOT my intention to single out or embarrass the person who made up these explanations for their 10 point ratings system. That's why I didn't mention the Youtuber's name that came up with this. However, I needed an example to provide to my subscribers about how flawed the explanations are for some of the points on some people's 10 point ratings system explanations. Looking at their 10 (really 11 point) ratings system for PPVs. You'll notice that the explanations for points 0, 1 and 2 are all interchangeable. Their explanations for points 4 and 5 are interchangeable as well, as is their explanations for points 8 and 9 ...


Warning: mysql_close(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /edu-source/cbsenext/cfw/index.php on line 550