Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
I have asked my teacher, as she was introducing the concept of mole to us, why that
number was chosen, instead of more convenient one. She told me that it came from
the definition of the mole, that is the number of atoms in 12g of Carbon 12. When I
asked why that definition was chosen, she answered me that my question wasn't
really a question, and I understood from her stare that asking why? twice in a row
shareimprove this
question
Oliver
1626
+1 for asking your teacher like a child, something I think all curious
and exploring minds should do! Never accept "because I say so" as
an answer ;) Wilhelmsen May 30 '14 at 11:12
Go easy on your teacher though - sometimes it's hard to tell if a
student is smart, or just "being smart" :) thomij May 30 '14 at 20:37
add a comment
2 Answers
active oldest votes
up vote 15 Why is the definition of the moles as it is?
down vote
It is a rather arbitary definition that the mole is the number of atoms in 12g of
carbon 12. This has not always been the definition. For example, prior to 1960, the
definition was based upon oxygen rather than carbon-12.
The first standard was based upon 1 gram of hydrogen. Later, the standard was
changed to 16 grams of oxygen being a mole, for convenience because oxygen
formed compounds with many other elements. Eventually it was realized that
elements including oxygen have different isotopes of different mass, and the mass
of a particular isotope is a more specific and measurable standard than the mass of
natural abundance oxygen. 12 grams of carbon-12 matches the old standard of 16
grams of natural abundance oxygen more closely than choosing 16 grams of
oxygen 16.
can we really neglect the mass of electrons, when the atoms get bigger?
The mass of a proton or neutron is about 1836 times that of an electron. So
depending upon the ratio of neutrons to protons, electrons are at most 1/1836 of the
mass of a neutral atom. If accuracy of more than 1 part in 1836 is desired, it is
important to consider the electrons, regardless of whether atoms are big or small.
why do the element's mass per mole do very rarely end up being integers?
accepted
No element other than carbon-12 will exactly be an interger. This is because masses
of atoms depend upon number of protons, neutrons, electrons and binding energy.
In other words, considering that carbon-12 has an equal number of protons and
neutrons (and electrons), other isotopes with a 1:1 proton/neutron ratio would have
essentially integral atomic masses except for binding energy. For example cadmium
112 is 111.90 instead of exactly 112 because binding energy is slightly more than
0.1 amu, partially offest by a higher number of neutrons than protons, the neutron
mass being slightly greater than the combined mass of an electron and proton.
As pointed out by Matt Black, the natural abundance atomic masses further deviate
because they are weighted averages of the masses of isotopes of a given element,
weighted by their abundance on Earth.
shareimprove this
answer
DavePhD
12.3k640
That's a good answer - I would also add that all standards are chosen
for two reasons: consistency and convenience, and C-12 meets both
requirements better than any other element. thomij May 29 '14 at
18:21
The major reason why elements masses are not integers or even
close to them is that most quoted numbers in periodic tables are
based on a mixture of isotopes. The errors from binding energy etc.
are usually much smaller (parts per thousand so affecting the 2nd or
3rd decimal place). matt_black May 29 '14 at 23:14
@matt_black that is right however
E=mc2
So the mass is linked to the energy, different elements have different
energy due to different Nuclear binding ENERGY and so different mass!