oh nice
man i wrote like 3 pages for that aha
i wrote for actificial valves
- teflon
- pyrolytic carbon
and for pacemakers
- titanium (casing)
- polypropylene
- silicone
- platinum
i just did that before i went in exams thismorning was really weird aye...
for the fibre optics i focussed on what...
can we say we could increase reliability by trying an entirely different approach to the experimental design (i.e. a new experiment) and if we get the same trends in reulst they are more reliable?
or is it only doing it more times?
anode: Fe-->Fe2+ + 2e-
cathode: 2h+ + 2e- ---> H2 0.00V
overall
Fe + 2h+ --> Fe2+ + H2
so the cathode equation here as its 0.00v means its going to go in preference of those with ve- reduction potentials. So if theses acidic conditions werent to be there i.e. no H+, what would the normal...
when i do it i just write the variable names and cross them out as they change in a linear sort of fashion instead of a table. if u get me...
would i get marked down/
also do u need to do END FOR or are they self close?
all the hours i spent studying technical stuff that i thought should have been tested were not.
yesturday i did as well as i could have done if i hadnt studied between trials and now. waste of time
i think i get it now..so if it has a leading 1 in 2's comp when we put it back into normal form its negative whatever that number is, if it has a leading 0 in 2's comp when we put it into normal it is positive whatever the number is?
K+ + e- --> K -2.93V
H2O + 2e- --> H2 + 2OH- -0.83V (water reducing - this 1 goes)
Anode (+)
2I--> I2 + 2e- -0.62V (this 1 goes)
2H2O-->O2 + 4H+ + 4e- -1.23V
do we add the charges when writing overall equation or do -0.83- the 1.23 to get a lower number or is it -0.83-(-0.62) which makes...
im hoping some1 can answer this lol not much movement in these threads
ive got that geostationary satellites if they go off course are fixed by activating rockets on them using "radiowaves"...i thought the satellties were above the ionosphere and that radiowaves were reflected off it...should i...
i read the whole question wrong aha
"checksum is calculated by adding the number of 1 bits in the data bytes" did they just make that up for this q lol i didnt read that aha
silly mistakes
but checksum gets its sum by adding the unteger values of bytes and comparing it with the checmsum byte that was sent and if it doesnt match theres an error. Surely if bytes are changed then this wouldnt be the same number?
i actually think C now aha
partity check would find it. I think u think...