English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

7 answers

because the absolute value is very small, inconvenience to use, and quite difficult to know how weight it means.

2006-09-05 05:42:47 · answer #1 · answered by arifin ceper 4 · 0 0

To begin with, I'm pleased to see that your refer to atomic masses and not to atomic weights!

An absolute atomic mass would be an inconveniently small number. Much easier to take the atomic mass of hydrogen as unity (strictly the atomic mass of oxygen is taken as 16) and measure other atoms as multiples of that unit.

2006-09-05 04:49:49 · answer #2 · answered by clausiusminkowski 3 · 0 1

The atomic mass of any component (and this is isotopes) on the periodic table is relative to the atomic mass of Carbon being precisely 12. Any particular pattern of an component could comprise greater suitable than one in each and every of this is isotopes. The relative atomic mass of the component in that pattern is an basic of the mixed mass of isotopes in terms of their abundance in that pattern, each and each isotope having a somewhat distinct atomic mass.

2016-12-14 18:37:26 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

The answer is in the proportion of isotopes. For example Carbon does not have a weight of 12 because there is a small amount of naturally occuring Carbon-13 which increases the weight slightly of a mole of carbon that is why it's atomic weight is twelve point something.

2006-09-05 04:16:37 · answer #4 · answered by moronirocks2000 2 · 0 0

Relative atomic masses are the only ones available.

2006-09-05 04:51:01 · answer #5 · answered by Richard 7 · 0 1

because asbolute atomic mass is very small and by converting to relative tomic mass we get natural number seqence and it is easy to deal with them

2006-09-05 03:57:35 · answer #6 · answered by Mein Hoon Na 7 · 0 0

makes the math easier

2006-09-05 05:44:08 · answer #7 · answered by shiara_blade 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers