Skip to main content

How do you determine the number of subatomic particles in an atom using the periodic table, and where they are located within the atom?

The periodic table of elements provides specific information about each element. The atomic number is the number of protons found inside the nucleus of an atom. Protons have a positive charge. Once the number of protons is known, there is an equal number of negative electrons orbiting around the nucleus in specific energy levels. 


The atomic mass of an atom is the sum of the protons and neutrons it contains. Neutrons are neutral particles found in the nucleus. The atomic mass is calculated using the protons and neutrons but not the electrons, as their mass is negligible.


In an example, the element oxygen has an atomic number of 8 and an atomic mass of 16. Therefore, 8 protons are in the nucleus, and if we subtract the atomic number from the atomic mass, (16-8) we will find there are 8 neutrons also located in the nucleus.


To place the 8 electrons in their orbitals, the first energy level holds two electrons. That leaves 6 electrons to be placed in the next energy level which can hold up to 8. 


I have included an interactive periodic table link along with a link to a diagram of an oxygen atom.

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