(11)についてです。 一連の運動で力学的エネルギーは保存しないですか？ 模範解答には運動量が保存するから(11)の速度は0だと書いてありました🙇‍♂️

mAcos-my 問2 次に、箱が床の上で自由に動ける場合を考える。 物体をばねに押しつけ, ばねを自然長より d[m] だけ縮めた状態で箱に固定し, 静止させる。時刻 t = 0sに静かに固定を放すと, 箱と物体は運動を始める。 図3の右方向を 正に取り、物体がばねから離れるときの箱の速度をV[m/s], 物体の速度を (4) 「力学的エネルギー V km/s] とすると,運動量保存の法則より 保存の法則より (5) の関係が成り立つ。 これより, 箱の速度は (7) [m/s] であることがわ V= (6) かる。 [m/s], 物体の速度はv= 物体がばねから離れるまでは,箱と物体はばねから力を受けて運動してい る。この運動が箱と一緒に動く観測者にとってどのように見えるか考える。 図4のように, 物体と箱の左端の間の距離をX [m] とおく。 箱から見た物体 の加速度 A[m/s] は,箱の加速度を am[m/s2], 物体の加速度をam 〔m/s2] とするとA=am-amである。 箱と物体の運動方程式より,AはX,I, M,m, k を用いて A = (8) 〔m/s2〕 と表される。 これは箱から観測す る物体の運動が, 問1のように箱を固定したままの状態で物体の質量を (9) 〔kg〕としたときに, 物体が行う運動と同じになることを示して いる。 その後、ばねから離れた物体は時刻 (10) [s] に箱の右端に達し, 箱 に付着した。 物体が付着した後の箱の速度は (11) [m/s] となる。 d (0000) 図3 箱自由

解答の図に記入されている線分比がなぜその比になるのかわかりません。 分かりやすくするために問題文に書かれている比はバツで消してみました。 バツがついていない比がなぜそうなるのかひとつもわかりません。

- 直方体 ABCDEFGH があり, ADを12に内 分する点を X, CD の中点を Y, FG を 2:1 に内分する 点をZとおく。この直方体を3点X, Y, Z を通る平面で 切断したときの断面を図示せよ。

(3)funではダメな理由を教えてください ↑ good

私はその駅を探しています。 I'm looking □ (3) 彼らは楽しい時間を過ごしました。 They 1(4) 私の兄は今, 家にいます。 My brother is had at a fun time home now. (5) 彼は友だちと夜にたくさん話しました。 He talked a lot with his friends □(6) すぐに私に手紙を書いてください。 Please write last letter me soon.

（5)合っていますか？

J A few days later, I heard something from her room. When I entered her room, her phon was ringing on the table. I didn't answer the phone, but I saw an album on the table/M name was on it. When I opened it, there were many pictures of me. Then, I found a lot o letters in the album, too. I read one of them. I enjoyed reading the book with you. You rea it with me many times. Thank you!" I wrote it when I was a small boy. She had a lot o pictures and old letters from me. I was moved by that. H (4) 次の質問 Wha Wh

この答えってinterestingとかじゃだめですか？？

次の文の( )に入る最も適当な語を書きなさい。 (1) Lisa Please tell me about your school days. Ms. Sato Well, I remember *chatting with my friends while we were walking to school. We walked for about one hour every day. We enjoyed talking about our school clubs, favorite singers, and TV shows. Lisa That sounds ( ). Ms. Sato: Yes. I enjoyed my school days a lot. (注) chatting おしゃべり [ 長野県 ・ 改]

untilとbyの違いを教えてください🙇‍♀️

右が答えなんですけどなんでtheirじゃなくてthemになるんですか？？

3 次の文を読んで, あとの問いに答えなさい。 After lunch, Mr. Harada said to me, “Please help us ① [香川県 改] our work." We entered a room of the "elderly people. Then (私は彼らの世話をし始 めました). (注) elderly お年寄りの ①に入る最も適当な語を,次のア~エから1つ選び、記号で答えなさい。 ア under (1) イ with ウ of I from 超重要 (2) 下線部②の ( 内の日本文を英語に直しなさい。 〕 Then

書き換えです かっこに入る単語が何か教えてください🙏

During my stay in Kyoto, I visited many temples. ( ) ( ) ( Kyoto, I visited many temples. ) ( ) in

英語がおかしくないか見てほしいです！ よろしくお願いします🙇‍♀️

My family holds a Christmas party every year. This year I had chicken and cake. Santa didn't come so I got a present from my parents. After Christmas comes New Year's. I spent New Year's at my grandma's house. We play games, watch TV and relax together. Of course I don't study. So, I finish my homework early.

問4の⑤の計算はどうすれば合うのですか。 教えてください🙇‍♀️ 3枚目が答えです。

次の英文を読んで,下の設問に答えなさい。 Last year, 4.2 million babies died. That is the most recent number reported by UNICEF of deaths before the age of one, worldwide. We often see lonely and emotionally charged numbers like this in the news or in the materials of activist groups or organizations. They produce a reaction. Who can even imagine 4.2 million dead babies? It is so terrible, and even worse when we know that almost all died from easily preventable diseases. And how can anyone argue that 4.2 million is anything other than a huge number? You might think that nobody would even try to argue (that, but you would be wrong. That is exactly why I mentioned this number. Because it is not huge: it is beautifully small. If we even start to think about how tragic each of these deaths is for the parents who had waited for their newborn to smile, and walk, and play, and instead had to bury their baby, then this number could keep us crying for a long time. But who would be helped by these tears? Instead let's think clearly about human suffering. The number 4.2 million is for 2016. The year before, the number was 4.4 million. The year before that, it was 4.5 million. Back in 1950, it was 14.4 million. That's almost 10 million more dead babies per year, compared with today. Suddenly this terrible number starts to look smaller. In fact (2)the number has never been lower. Of course, I am the first person to wish the number was even lower and falling even faster. But to know how to act, and how to prioritize resources, nothing can be more important than doing the cool-headed math and realizing what works and what doesn't. And this is clear: more and more deaths are being prevented. comparing the numbers. (3). We would never realize that without