Ask the master about all kinds of total balance

Let me tell you what I understand. Balancing refers to a way of transmitting signals, which simply means transmitting opposite signals with two wires. Only the difference in signal between these two wires is amplified.

In this way, interference in the transmission can be avoided. Because usually interference will have the same effect on both lines, then as soon as the signal of the two wires is reduced, the interference is eliminated. So the balance is only in the signaling pathway.

Yes, not on the horn. Then there is only a balanced input for the amplifier. If it's a preamp, there will be balanced inputs and outputs.

The real fully balanced power amplifier is to use one power amplifier to receive one signal in the balance output to the positive end of the speaker, and one power amplifier to receive another signal in the balance to output to the negative end of the speaker. Therefore, the number of all components of a true fully balanced amplifier must be twice that of the unbalanced. If it is pseudo-balanced, that is, there is a balance interface, through a conversion circuit to convert the two balance signals into ordinary RCA single signal to a power amplifier, the power amplifier output is connected to the positive end of the horn, and the negative end of the horn is grounded.

Balance is more than just reducing interference during transmission. Two power amplifiers push one horn, can put the output power.

Up to 4 times. Moreover, such a symmetrical circuit can cancel out the odd harmonics that are not good to hear, and the sound will sound better. So balance is a good thing, provided that the sound source to the amplifier is a double true balance method, and no conversion circuitry is used.

I've tried RCA to balance, and it doesn't seem to have improved. Balance to RCA is fine.

1.For the left and right sides of the stoichiometric number is equal, whether it is isothermal isobaric or isothermal isovolume, it only needs to correspond to proportion

n2 + o2 = 2no

2.For the left and right stoichiometric sums are not equal

If it is isothermal and isobaric, it corresponds to proportional

n2 + 3h2 = 2nh3

If it is an allisometric equal volume, then the amount of matter should be exactly equal

Actually"Certain conditions"Specifically, it means that you don't have to dig deeper, and answer according to the meaning of the question"Any of the same components"Refers to the corresponding components of the reaction. For example, 2SO2 + O2 <==> 2SO3

The first case tells you that SO2 is 2mol and O2 is 1mol, and the second case is SO3 is 2mol, and when you completely transform one of these cases into the product (provided that it is a reversible reaction, of course), you will find that the amount generated is the same as the other case (moles), so it is equivalent equilibrium.

There are also specific examples in other textbooks.

Hello this classmate, I am a chemistry teacher, you should ask your chemistry teacher separately for this question, and the content expressed in words here is not as good as finding a better reference book.

Now you are the bottleneck, if you want to progress, you must learn new technology, and the first introduction will be even drifting

The more people play together, the higher the score, and you must take the first place! ~

You're already very good at your skills, what level are you?

The algorithm of the square is only used to balance the group! Unbalanced populations cannot be used to calculate gene frequencies using prescriptions! If the title doesn't tell you that it is a balanced group, you must not use the prescription to calculate the gene frequency, you can only use the general method to calculate the gene frequency!

Got it? The equilibrium population is the population that conforms to the gene frequency of dd = the square of p, the frequency of dd gene = q, and the frequency of dd gene = 2pq. You see, if the proportion of plants in dd and dd is 10% and 70% respectively, then dd is 20%, and if you square it, you can see that obviously the sum of the frequency of d and the frequency of d is obviously not 1, so it's not a balanced group. Got it?

I didn't understand and continued to ask.

Calculate gene frequencies d20% and d80% first

Gametes are randomly combined.

dd4% dd32% dd64%

There are benefits and harms.

Harms: Dangers of smoking.

This is something that cannot be controlled! If there is this phenomenon, if you want to have a child or not, you have to go to the hospital! Drugs can't be cured.

Don't wait until you lose it to know how to cherish it--- change it to --- if she is not worth cherishing at all, then don't cherish it.

You may be the one who is naturally skinny. In this case, it will be difficult for you to gain weight no matter how much you make up. Get more exercise. The muscles are stronger. It looks like a sporty one. It doesn't look like you're thin.

A medical examination is done first. See if there are any worms in your stomach. See if there is any problem with your constitution.

If there is no problem, exercise more and don't stay up late. Nutrition keeps up. The heart is wide and the body is fat.

However, some people are born thin, but they can become stronger by themselves through the posterior angel.

c correct. 2a(g)+b(g)=xc(g), the temperature and initial pressure of both containers are the same.

Container A is filled with 2mola and 1molb, and the initial pressure p is set, and the container volume is 3L, and the sum is filled in container B, and the initial pressure p is set, then the volume of the container, after equilibrium, the volume fraction of C in the equilibrium mixture is k, that is, the equivalent equilibrium.

x=3, then the gas volume before and after the reaction remains unchanged, x=2, then A and B are fed equally, x is other, then A and B are fed in proportion, a:b=2:1

a.If both containers of A and B are constant capacity containers, then x must be equal to 2 Wrong, when x=2, A and B are fed equally, but the volume of the two containers is different, and the positive gas of the reaction is reduced, so it is not equivalent equilibrium, it should be x=3.

b.If both containers A and B are constant pressure containers, then x must be equal to 3 wrong, as long as the feeding ratio is the same, the constant pressure is equivalent balance, so x can be any value.

c.If A is a constant capacity container, B is a constant pressure container and x = 3, then n1 must be greater than n2 pairs, A constant capacity, has always been 3L, B constant pressure, the same pressure as A, and x = 3, then B is equivalent to the sum of the feeding, so it is less than A, so the equivalent balance, but the generation of C is less.

d.If A is a constant pressure container, B is a constant capacity container, then n1 must be greater than n2 wrong, B constant capacity, has been, A constant pressure, then equivalent, at this time not necessarily, to see whether the combination of B plus is in equilibrium, if the combination of B is exactly in equilibrium, then x no matter how much, is equivalent equilibrium, then n1 and n2 can not judge who is big and who is small, if the combination of B is not in equilibrium, then forward or reverse is more difficult to judge.

There is only one answer.

First of all, I want to explain to you the equivalence balance. Equilibrium is an important and difficult point in Chemistry Elective 4.

There are two types of equivalent equilibrium: one is the equivalent equilibrium at constant temperature and pressure. Constant temperature and pressure are divided into those with constant volume and those with changed volume.

Both can be done as long as the ratio of the feeding amount is the same. After the equilibrium is reached, the volume of each component and the quantity fraction of the substance remain unchanged. However, the volume of each component, the amount of the substance, increases.

This is the same as increasing the temperature, the reaction rate increases, and the exothermic side increases more.

The other is constant temperature and constant capacity. It is also divided into volumetric constant and volume-altering. The volume remains the same as above.

The volume change should be equal to the amount of feeding in order to achieve equivalent equilibrium, and the volume of each component and the amount fraction of the substance remain unchanged after equilibrium. However, the volume of each component, the amount of the substance, increases.

The above question 2a(g)+b(g)=xc(g).

A converts c to a and b at constant temperature and capacity, and the amount of material is equal, so divide by x = 2It can be calculated that x=2

In b, x can be any value, because the ratio is 1, no matter what value x takes to convert to a, the ratio is 2 to 1 and will not change.

C, d in one is constant pressure and the other is constant volume, increase the amount of reactants, quite pressurized, for the A container in C because of constant pressure, the balance does not move, the volume of the container gas remains unchanged, the balance does not move, so n1 = n2

The equilibrium of the D A container does not move, and it has been divided into three cases, that is, the volume of the gas becomes smaller, the same changes, and the larger size. The volume of the gas becomes smaller, and the pressurized equilibrium shifts positively, n2>n1unchanged, n2=n1It gets bigger, and n2 so d is also wrong.

The answer is A. I hope you can do the equivalent balance questions in the future. (I've been playing for a long time, too).

I think that if the AA option is constant, use the equivalent balance. (, i.e., convert c to ab and solve x=2.)

B item, the constant pressure is comparable. (, x is indefinite.)

c thinks, x=3, there is no change in volume before and after the reaction, and the starting amount is the same, n1=n2d term, special value method, x=3, he is not valid.

A x to 3 is fine.

b x can be any value.

The volume of c b is unchanged and can be equivalent to the same as a and the proportionality of the punch.

How could the world economy have fallen into such a deep trough? The world economy is recovering, and despite the unprecedented slackening of monetary and fiscal policy, the recovery from the Great Recession is still struggling. Moreover, is it possible to emerge from this coercive force a balanced world economy?

The fact that such an extreme response is necessary is striking. The near-zero policy encore, however, is even more alarming. And the most surprising of all the facts is ---that this is not the first time in recent decades that the world economy has had to be steered in order to get through the post-bubble economic collapse.

How can this be the case that the world economy has fallen into a deep hole? It is recovering, but painful, after a severe recession, despite the unprecedented easing of monetary and fiscal policy. Also, how could this balanced world economy emerge in this feeding?

In fact, this intense action has always been necessary to be terrible. In fact, there are few places where there is a more terrifying burst of policy. The most frightening thing is that this is not the first time in recent decades that the global economy has been steered through the collapse brought about by a bubble economy.

How did the world economy fall into the abyss? The severe economic downturn has triggered unprecedented monetary and fiscal easing, and although there has been a resurgence, the process has been painful. Further, will force-feeding necessarily lead to a balanced world economy?

The necessary drastic reaction now seems worrisome. And the room for policy return is even smaller and frightening. Most horrifyingly, this is not the first time in decades that the world economy has inevitably entered a post-collapse bubble.

How did the world economy sink so deeply? After a deep recession, the economy is struggling to recover despite an unprecedented easing of monetary and fiscal policy. Moreover, to what extent would such coercive measures balance the world economy?

The terrible fact is that such a drastic move is necessary. Even more frightening is the fact that there is little room for policy redesign. The most frightening thing is that this is not the first time in nearly a decade that the global economy has been steered through a post-bubble economic collapse.