Write the chemical formula for this molecule O=N-CI

Explanation:

Structural Formulas v. Empirical Formulas

An empirical formula (like a molecular formula) lacks any structural information about the positioning or bonding of atoms in a molecule. It can therefore describe a number of different structures, or isomers, with varying physical properties. For butane and isobutane, the empirical formula for both molecules is C2H5, and they share the same molecular formula, C4H10. However, one structural representation for butane is CH3CH2CH2CH3, while isobutane can be described using the structural formula (CH3)3CH.

part 1: the half-life of the element is 22 years.

part 2: it will take 132.02 year for the sample to decay from 308.0 g to 4.8125 g.

explanation:

part 1: there are two ways to determine the half life time.

first way: the half life time can be determined directly from its definition as it is the time required for the sample to decay to its half concentration.

from the data the initial concentration was 45.0 g and decayed to its half value (22.5 g) in 22.0 years.

second way: the radio active decay is considered first order reaction so we can use the laws of first order reactions.

k = (1/t) ln (a/a-x), where k is the rate constant of the reaction,

t is the time of the reaction

a is the initial concentration of the reactant

a-x is the remaining concentration at time (t)

a = 45.0 g the initial concentration at t = 0 year.

at t = 22 year, a-x = 22.5 g

then k = (1/22 year) ln (45.0 g/ 22.5 g) = 0.0315 year-1.

the half-life time (t1/2) = ln 2/ k = 0.693/ k =0.693/ 0.0315 = 22 years.

part 2:

using the same law k = (1/t) ln (a/a-x),

using the given data; a = 308.0 g and a-x = 4.8125 g and the calculated k from the part 1 (k = 0.0315 year-1)

t = (1/k) ln (a/a-x) = (1/0.0315) ln (308.0/ 4.8125) = 132.02 years

when—without warning—something provokes your anger, you may struggle not to succumb to it. since what typically makes you mad is feeling powerless in the face of what seems unfair, your anger is mostly an attempt at a “quick fix” to right the balance. it’s as though you’re raising a fist in protest, proclaiming that you’re not going to capitulate to such injustice.

there are, however, a multitude of problems related to this immediate, push-back reaction of anger. and probably the key one is that almost never does it resolve the issue that gave rise to it. such reactive anger is probably best understood as self-defeating. as david burns, the author of the seminal self- book feeling good, observes: if realistically, acting on your anger is to make any sense, it needs to meet two criteria—which, in almost every case, is frankly impossible. that is, your anger must:

be directed toward a person who has intentionally (and needlessly) behaved in a hurtful way toward you; and

be beneficial or advantageous to you (i.e., assist you in achieving a desired goal).

i think you’ll agree that only rarely can you claim that your anger is both warranted and , whether to yourself or the relationship.

so let me offer you a two-step alternative to abandoning your better judgment and giving in to the temptation of anger—one that should neutralize your anger in seconds. or, when you’re really angry, in minutes.

but keep in mind that you must really want to execute these steps, be sufficiently motivated to perform them. which means overcoming more unconscious resistance than you might ever have imagined. because there are many immediate “advantages” of anger that can interfere with your resolve, i’ll suggest a few of them that might interfere with your employing this powerful method to rid yourself of counter-productive anger.

explanation: