Відео

These are shorts full explanations are in the corresponding long form playlists.

Synthetic?

4.92 moles.

Thanks for pointing that out...

@@engedusouza Thanks! Glad you like the videos. R.C. Hibbeler Engineering Mechanics Statics 13th.

More detailed explanations of shorts will be in the long form content. Polynomial long division lectures and example problems have not been posted yet but in the next few months you will be able to find videos on this topic in the algebra playlist...

Yes exactly that video clip is from 3Blue1brown. Great Linear Algebra series they put together. I thought the main video I was referring to was also on that channel but I couldn't find it. The video that does a nonlinear transformation like shown but is zoomed in to a point so you can see just a line that is transforming amongst all of the nonlinearity.

@@hebertengineering the other video I can think of was from puzzleanimation. I think the video was nonlinear transformations but I don’t think it zoomed in. Man, you got going on trying to remember the video😂.

I talk about this in more detail when we go through the textbook section on rms (this video isn't posted yet). I'm not a statistician but the authors of the Statistics textbook I'm teaching from (Statistics 4th by David Freedman, Robert Pisani, & Roger Purves) say quote, "Statisticians use the rms size because it fits better with the algebra they have to do. Whether this explanation is appealing or not, don't worry. Everyone is suspicious of the rms at first, and gets used to it very quickly". So based on that quote I guess the main answer is that it has become common practice to use rms instead of the average of the absolute values. Either way would probably work fine. But the statistics community is most familiar with and used to rms so use rms for this purpose.

Sure no problem.

Yes that is another way you could solve the problem as well.

@@elmossavworld3543 what do you mean? Are you talking about the 0x term?

Yes exactly what he's talking about ​@@hebertengineering

@@tomlovinggood265 haha

If you take 2.94 times 120.36 then divide by 17.031 you get 20.8. The 120.36 is in the numerator not the denominator.

Chemistry (12th) Kenneth Goldsby & Raymond Chang

@@hebertengineering thx!

Lol thnks.

Update, I took the quiz and this was not even on there 😂

The oxidation number chart is not an "answer sheet". It's a reference. Some teachers might allow you to have a chart like that on a test. Many times it doesn't even tell you the answer because some have multiple values that are applicable to the problem. I said in the video that the most probable oxidation number for the Hydrogen atom was -1 because Sodium is a metal and Boron is a metalloid. That's why it's +3 and not -5. Hydrogen is bonding with a metal and metalloid so again high likelihood that Hydrogen will be -1. But still good to check since Boron is not technically a metal but a metalloid. If you want to know exactly how the oxidation number chart was created that's a topic for a separate video.

@@quirinonavarro1857 Thanks I’ll probably just leave the music keep it consistent. It’s low volume anyway. Do you find it distracting?

@@hebertengineeringI’m sorry, the comment was meant for someone else… saludos!

The amount of protons with respect to the amount of electrons and thus atomic size, will produce different energy levels which we measure in different wave lengths

Each orbital has an energy level. When an electron jumps from a higher energy orbital to a lower energy orbital, it gives on an electromagnetic wave of energy equal to the difference in energies of the two orbitals. The possible electromagnetic wave energies that come from an atom will be unique for the specific atom because every atom has a different number of electrons and protons.

No not even close. Even without the extra net it doesn't hit the back. Only issue is without the extra net there is much more susceptible to eventually a ball tears through and you have a hole.

interesting perspective :)

@@tybeedave There are some weird oddities in the dual slit example. Some use incoherent light, and others use a laser beam (coherent light), and then some supposedly use a single photon at a time (coherent or incoherent?). Then we have the possibility of filters to change the wave polarization. > Somewhere in my mind I feel that the 3D spherical wave front may persist even in coherent or polarized light. Even if the bulk energy (amplitude) is directed more toward a coherent direction. In this you could image as per the tables in the video where all of the spherical light wave exists, but the peak that is visible/detectable is in the narrow direction of the laser beam. In the double slit experiments it would appear as if the laser beam still has the light wave outside of the narrow beam. It's interesting stuff :)

@@axle.student slit experiments can be perplexing. i always keep in mind that at a quantum level, there is a lots of space between molecules for allowing bits of energy to filter through the barrier to keep the wavefront whole. this does slow part of it down leading to the familiar pattern. a photon is likely made of a zillion smaller particles, like everything else. i've not researched this subject but when one realizes anything and everything is made from smaller things, it's not so mysterious :)

@@tybeedave This we know. But still doesn't answer the question about the extent of the wave or its shape/description :) Flat, narrow directional wave, or Spherical wave (all directions).

@@axle.student you've confused me. or i have woken up with a foggy brain. maybe there are unobserved harmonics and/or resonances within the wave? i don't know :)

A negated existential qualifier, huh? 😂