How Do You Write an Isotope Compared to an Element on the Periodic Table?

AI Thread Summary
To write an isotope, the element's symbol is used, with the mass number as a superscript on the top left and the atomic number as a subscript on the bottom left. For example, carbon-13 is represented as 136C. This notation differentiates isotopes by indicating the specific mass number, which reflects the total number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The atomic number, which denotes the number of protons, remains consistent for each element. Understanding this format is essential for accurately representing isotopes in scientific contexts.
land_of_ice
Messages
136
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




Like, if you are writing out one of the blocks on the table of elements chart, you would write out the letter of the element, and then you would write the atomic average (or atamoic mass it is also known as,) on the bottom left , and the atmomic mass on the top to the right (thats how it usually is)


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



QUESTION: When you write an isotope, you would write the letter that stands for the elements, and then right next to that on the left you would write the mass number and the atomic number under neath the mass number ? Correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Yes, the atomic number would be in the subscript(bottom) to the left, and the atomic mass as the superscript(top). For example, carbon-13 would be written as 136C.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top