Physics, 12.07.2019 22:30 babyissy2016

Aspring with a mass of 0.7 kg is hanging on it and has an angular frequency of 2.4 when in oscillation. what is the spring constant? calculate to one decimal place.

Answers: 1

Show answers

Answers

Answer from: vaeh41

Spring constant, k = 2.304 N/m

Explanation:

It is given that,

Mass of spring, m = 0.7 kg

Angular frequency, $\omega=2.4\ rad/s$

We need to find the spring constant of the spring. It is a case of SHM. Its angular frequency is given by :

$\omega=\sqrt{\dfrac{k}{m}}$

$k=\omega^2\times m$

$k=(2.4)^2\times 0.4\ kg$

k = 2.304 N/m

So, the spring constant of the spring is 2.304 N/m. Hence, this is the required solution.

Answer from: Quest

Energy transformations are processes that convert energy from one type (e.g., kinetic, gravitational potential, chemical energy) into another. any type of energy use must involve some sort of energy transformation.energy must obey the laws of thermodynamics.thermodynamics is the study of how energy changes from one type to another. the laws of thermodynamics apply to energy and energy conversions.the first law of thermodynamics: main articleenergy cannot be created or destroyed (which is called the conservation of energy); however, it can be transformed from one type into another. in fact, every useful process transforms energy from one form to another. there are many different forms or types of energy. some examples of everyday energy transformations are: scenario energy conversions involvedrubbing hands together to make them warm kinetic energy to thermal energyusing a battery-powered flashlight chemical energy to electrical energy (in the battery)electrical energy to radiant energy (in the bulb)an object speeding up as it falls gravitational potential energy to kinetic energythe second law of thermodynamics: main articlesome forms of energy are more useful than others. using energy always makes it less useful, even though no energy is actually destroyed.kinetic energy and electricity are the most useful forms. these are "high-quality" because they can be transformed almost completely into any other type of energy. electricity, for example, can be easily used to generate heat (thermal energy) or light (radiant energy), break chemical bonds (chemical energy), move objects (kinetic energy), or lift objects (gravitational potential energy).the least useful form of energy is low-temperature thermal energy. it can still be converted back to a higher-quality form, but useful energy is always lost in this process. converting energy to a less-useful form and then trying to work backwards never gets 100% of the useful energy back.for example, when a car runs, the engine will become hot (thermal energy). the warmth of the engine does nothing to the car move or go faster. this wasted energy is an unavoidable by-product of converting the car's fuel (chemical energy) into movement ("high-quality" kinetic energy), however it can potentially be used for heating the cabin of the car to slightly increase overall energy efficiency. it is a challenge for all forms of power generation to minimize wasted energy and be as efficient as possible.

Answer from: Quest

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: