The off-gas from a reactor in a process plant in the heart of freedonia has been condensing and plugging up the vent line, causing a dangerous pressure buildup in the reactor. plans have been made to send the gas directly from the reactor into a cooling condenser in which the gas and liquid condensate will be brought to 25°c. a) you have been called in as a consultant to aid in the design of this unit. unfortunately, the chief (and only) plant engineer has disappeared and nobody else in the plant can tell you what the off-gas is (or what anything else is, for that matter). however, a job is a job, and you set out to do what you can. you find an elemental analysis in the engineer's notebook indicating that the gas formula is csh120. on another page of the notebook, the off-gas flow rate is given as 235 m3/h at 116°c and 1 atm. you take a sample of the gas and cool it to 25°c, where it proves to be a solid. you then heat the solidified sample at 1 atm and note that it melts at 52°c and boils at 113°c. finally, you make several assumptions and estimate the heat removal rate in kw required to bring the off-gas from 116°c to 25°c. what is your result? b) if you had the right equipment, what might you have done to get a better estimate of the cooling rate?

8

explanation:

each principal energy level above the first contains one s orbital and three p orbitals. a set of three p orbitals, called the p sublevel, can hold a maximum of six electrons. therefore, the second level can contain a maximum of eight electrons - that is, two in the s orbital and 6 in the three p orbitals.

mark brainliest and have a great day!

1. the question asks the most appropriate, which seems to rule out "all of the above." your choice appears to be the correct one.

2. the protocol described is good for identifying correlation, but not cause and effect. for cause/effect, you need to devise a protocol that will assign the treatment (or not) to groups that have essentially the same "demographics" with respect to all the other variables. your choice regarding control group seems appropriate. random assignment of treatment (choice d) may be appropriate also. (i think you can argue that b and d are just different descriptions of the same method.)

3. d will randomize the birds, but may not guarantee there are 10 in each group. e will do both, so seems the better choice.

comment on question 2

based on the problem statement, it seems clear that confident, attentive drivers are more likely to use daytime running lights. so, the protocol might need to be devised in such a way that the lights would be turned on or off without the driver's knowledge. (an attentive driver will figure it out.) assigning a confident, attentive driver to a group required to drive without running lights might mess with his/her confidence and attentiveness. you don't want your experiment to do that. (nor do you want the experiment to subject a driver to greater risk of accident as a consequence of driving without running lights.) experiments involving human safety are always problematic.

when the volume of gas is   changed from   717.73 ml   to 852 ml   the temperature will   change   from 315   c to 452   c

    calculation

this is calculated using the charles law formula

that is,   v1/t1 = v2/t2

          v1=?

        t1 = 315 c   into   kelvin = 315 +273 = 588 k

        v2 = 852   ml

        t2 = 425c + 273 =698 k

make v1   the subject of the formula ( by   multiplying both side by t1)

  v1=( v2 xt1) / t2

v1= (852 ml   x 588 k)/ 698 k= 717.73 ml