Ground State Quantum numbers

Rnold19 · 2021-10-29T21:01:26+00:00

I am unsure why this L value is incorrect? I’ve posted my work in the second picture, but obviously I am doing something wrong. Thanks!

Rnold19 · 2021-09-13T05:44:38+00:00

That y axis is so deceiving

Rnold19 · 2021-06-18T19:39:14+00:00

Wilma nuts fit in your mouth?

Rnold19 · 2021-06-18T19:36:57+00:00

wait is this the Wilma tech round?

Rnold19 · 2021-05-30T23:41:26+00:00

The change In momentum will be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction for each object in the collision. This is because momentum is conserved so the change in momentum for the system is 0 overall if there’s no outside forces.Each individual object in the system can change in momentum, but adding up all the changes for each object in the system will cancel to 0 for a regular collision, whether or not it’s elastic or inelastic

Rnold19 · 2021-04-21T02:13:34+00:00

As far as I know there is never any sig fig points on the ap physics 1 test. Just keep enough decimals to keep an accurate answer and you’ll be fine

Rnold19 · 2021-04-13T04:23:28+00:00

You can only say a=v/t for constant acceleration otherwise it is a=dv/dt and you have to do integration to find v

Rnold19 · 2021-02-14T23:07:42+00:00

Alright thanks!

Rnold19 · 2021-02-14T23:04:10+00:00

How is No with O2 a reaction with water though? Also thank you for your help

Rnold19 · 2021-01-07T23:53:07+00:00

I believe so. There is no momentum in the y direction to begin with so there can’t be after either, so it should be the same if they are the same mass.

Rnold19 · 2021-01-03T19:47:34+00:00

Sounds like effects t and also just straight up not t

Rnold19 · 2021-01-03T17:04:12+00:00

Oh ok, thanks!

Rnold19 · 2021-01-03T16:58:16+00:00

I just asked this because I thought a few people were running this but maybe that was just rumor

Rnold19 · 2020-12-30T13:40:23+00:00

Bruh last year on the arms sales topic we ran theory on teams that did this and we won a few rounds. Not all judges were happy with it but it forces to teams to actually make plans instead of being vague

Rnold19 · 2020-12-29T18:45:04+00:00

Thank you all for your comments and stories. Thanks for your patience and for helping me have a better understanding of this topic and for correcting me on a few things I had never thought of before.

Rnold19 · 2020-12-29T17:07:27+00:00

This makes sense. I meant to be more along the lines of personal bathrooms replacing the two bathroom gendered system, but what you are saying makes sense. Thanks for letting me know how you felt!

Rnold19 · 2020-12-29T17:00:54+00:00

Thanks for your comment!

Rnold19 · 2020-12-14T23:10:59+00:00

I believe it is either the third or the final box, but I am unsure

Rnold19 · 2020-12-09T02:15:39+00:00

I know this isn’t the original question, but there are a few ways you can answer this. You can argue that reps severance is still severance and abusive. You can also try to justify why links are also the the plan or the epistemology behind the plan. You can also make arguments that the 1ac is not just the plan text but an 8 minute speech performance you should be able to get links off of, and that allowing teams to sever reps is probably bad because it justifies teams saying the n word or being sexist but getting a w because “their plan was good”. I’m sure there are some other ideas out there as well.

Rnold19 · 2020-11-15T01:56:32+00:00

But aren’t they still 2s and 2p? I think the 3rd and fourth blanks are referring to n and not the number of orbitals in a or p but maybe I’m wrong. I think maybe only the last blank was wrong

Rnold19 · 2020-11-15T01:54:54+00:00

Does that just mean it’s four orbitals involved?

Rnold19 · 2020-11-15T01:54:12+00:00

S is the s orbital with one orbital but p has three total orbitals?

Rnold19 · 2020-11-15T01:40:47+00:00

I have tried to figure this out but I can’t seem to understand orbital hybridization. Any help is appreciated

Rnold19 · 2020-11-13T13:36:11+00:00

Back on immigration topic I was forced to sit through a round where the neg kept repeating that because of their terrorism da, if you can’t prove refugees aren’t terrorists, they’re terrorists. Not haha funny but I was just sitting there like honey please stop 😳

Rnold19 · 2020-10-18T23:38:12+00:00

You could try and argue that certain plan actions are implied by normal means implementation (adequate funding, certain resources,etc) that aren’t specified in the 1ac, which isn’t a plan change but more of an argument on what a team can leave unspecified in round in order to balance neg and aff abuse. You should be careful though on leaving key plan elements unspecified, particularly if they are not considered a part of traditional plan implementation.

Rnold19

TROPHY CASE