#1 Really? Lithium and Neon?
#2 I'd pick D
#3 I guess I'd go with A as well
1. An atom has 3 protons, 4 neutrons, and 3 electrons. Use the periodic table to determine which atom would have similar chemical properties to this atom.
A)12 protons, 12 neutrons, and 12 electrons
B)11 protons, 11 neutrons, and 11 electrons
C)10 protons, 12 neutrons, and 10 electrons**
D)4 protons, 4 neutrons, and 3 electrons
2. Why is it impossible for an element to have an atomic number of 110.5?
A)Atoms with atomic numbers greater than 100 are unstable.
B)Atoms of an element all have the same whole number of protons and neutrons.
C)Atoms of an element all have the same whole number of protons.
D)Exactly half of the isotopes would need an atomic number of 110, and half would need an atomic number of 111, which is very unlikely.
I think this is either A or D
3. Why are elements on the periodic table not arranged by mass?
A) Similar elements have such different masses that this would lead to a completely random arrangement of elements.**
B) Atoms are so small that it would make little sense to talk about their mass.
C)This would not allow all of the elements with similar properties to be lined up with each other.
D)Atoms with similar masses are so different from each other that this would lead to a random arrangement of atoms.
PLEASE SOMEONE CHECK MY ANSWERS ASAP
6 answers
What about B for #1? Lithium and Sodium?
#2 was B and #3 was C
With regard to question 2, answers A, B, C are true. The best answer is C.(not B). Why? The question is why the element can't be 110.5 and that's exactly what B is. The atomic number is the number of protons and you can't split a proton (OK, you can spit and get quarks but that another topic) so you must have a whole number protons. While it is true that you must have a whole number of neutrons, also (yes, quarks again but we aren't discussing quarks) neutrons have nothing to do with atomic number. That's the number of protons ONLY.
With regard to question 3, yes C is the correct answer. You may be interest in knowing that when Mendeleev (and Meyer) were trying to make sense and to arrange the elements in logical order that both men actually DID arrange the elements in order of increasing mass. Surprisingly, the early periodic tables weren't all that bad. MANY of the elements actually did fall in line with similar physical/chemical properties . However, there were some that did not. For examplle, Ar and K did not work at all (atomic mass Ar > K) and Co > Ni. Mendeleev argued to his death that when CORRECT values for those "misbehaving" elements were determined that all would be OK. It wasn't until Moseley determined the atomic number (the number of protons in an element) and arranged element by the number of protons that the elements lined up as they should in the periodic table of today. Why are some elements cantankerous and we have those pairs that appear to be our of order arranged OK today?. The answer is isotopes. That causes K to be less than Ar and Ni to be less than Co etc.
With regard to question 3, yes C is the correct answer. You may be interest in knowing that when Mendeleev (and Meyer) were trying to make sense and to arrange the elements in logical order that both men actually DID arrange the elements in order of increasing mass. Surprisingly, the early periodic tables weren't all that bad. MANY of the elements actually did fall in line with similar physical/chemical properties . However, there were some that did not. For examplle, Ar and K did not work at all (atomic mass Ar > K) and Co > Ni. Mendeleev argued to his death that when CORRECT values for those "misbehaving" elements were determined that all would be OK. It wasn't until Moseley determined the atomic number (the number of protons in an element) and arranged element by the number of protons that the elements lined up as they should in the periodic table of today. Why are some elements cantankerous and we have those pairs that appear to be our of order arranged OK today?. The answer is isotopes. That causes K to be less than Ar and Ni to be less than Co etc.
Q: An atom has 3 protons, 4 neutrons, and 3 electrons. Use the periodic table to determine which atom would have similar chemical properties to this atom.
A: 11 protons, 11 neutrons, and 11 electrons
Q: Which component of an atom is represented by the atomic number?
A: protons
Q: Why is it impossible for an element to have an atomic number of 110.5?
A: Atoms of an element all have the same whole number of protons.
Q: Why are elements on the periodic table not arranged by mass?
A: This would not allow all of the elements with similar properties to be lined up with each other.
Q: How are elements arranged on the periodic table?
A: They are arranged to highlight similarities between different elements.
A: 11 protons, 11 neutrons, and 11 electrons
Q: Which component of an atom is represented by the atomic number?
A: protons
Q: Why is it impossible for an element to have an atomic number of 110.5?
A: Atoms of an element all have the same whole number of protons.
Q: Why are elements on the periodic table not arranged by mass?
A: This would not allow all of the elements with similar properties to be lined up with each other.
Q: How are elements arranged on the periodic table?
A: They are arranged to highlight similarities between different elements.
Anonymous is correct
1 answer