Skip to main content

How do the numbers of electrons compare in two isotopes of an element?

Isotopes are atoms of an element that have the same atomic number, but different atomic masses. For example, U-235 and U-238 are two isotopes of the element uranium. They have the same atomic number (92), but different mass numbers (235 and 238). The atomic number is the same as the number of protons. 


Thus, the number of protons of uranium = atomic number of uranium = 92.


The mass number is the sum total of number of protons and neutrons.


Thus, number of neutron = mass number - number of protons


= 235 - 92 = 143


and, 238 - 92 = 146.


Thus, the isotopes have same number of protons, but different numbers of neutrons.


Since the number of electrons is equal to the number of protons for an atom in the ground state, the number of electrons will be equal for all the isotopes of an element (for example, for the two isotopes of uranium, the number of electrons is 92).


Thus, the isotopes of an element differ only in terms of the number of neutrons and not in terms of the number of protons or electrons. 


Hope this helps.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more