<span>The Persian Wars mark an important turning point not only in Greek history but, indeed, in the course of all European civilization. First and foremost, because of its victory Greece was saved from the threat of external rule and could develop on its own. Handed this independence, the Greeks chose to follow a path which forever changed the course of modern life. Without their success in this conflict, they would, no doubt, never have had the liberty, means or conviction to invent, discover or create all they did: not just history but philosophy, science, drama, art, architecture, indeed most of the cornerstones of modern civilization.
Another consequence of this victory, less immediate but equally important, was that it prevented the Persians from dominating the lands to the west of Greece—as noted above, it's likely the fertile fields of Italy and Sicily, not the rough dust of Greece, were the real target of Xerxes' imperial designs—and there a tiny settlement called Rome had just begun to sprout, at that moment hardly a dot on the map, but it would later develop into a crucial player in the history of the West. Rome won freedom, too, in the Persian Wars, without ever fielding a single fighter. It's impossible to imagine how vastly different our world would be if Persia had conquered or exterminated the Romans before they'd ever had a chance to grow.
Thus, the Greeks laid the groundwork for later Western culture, and Herodotus the foundation for understanding it. If so many of his facts look suspect or even prove incorrect, if he sometimes seems to set speculation and scandal over sober criticism and science, before condemning him we should recall that he founded this entire enterprise called history, a discipline which still bears the name he gave it. His critics should also bear in mind it's only because Herodotus set us on this path that we can even scorn his methods in the first place. To this most uncommon "common man," we owe an enormous collective debt.</span>
The answer is (2). You can think about this question in terms of the Bohr's model of the atom or in terms of quantum chemistry. In the Bohr model, electrons exist in discrete "shells," each respresenting a fixed spherical distance from the nucleus in which electrons of certain energy levels orbit the nucleus. The larger the shell (the greater the "orbit" radius), the greater the energy of the "orbiting" electron (I use quotations because electrons don't actually orbit the nucleus in the traditional sense, as you may know). Thus, according to the Bohr model, a third shell electron should be farther from the nucleus and have greater energy than an electron in the first shell.
The quantum model is differs drastically from the Bohr model in many ways, but the essence is the same. A larger principal quantum number indicates 1) greater overall energy and 2) a probability distribution spread a bit more outward.
<span>Combustion means the elements or compound can be burned, but burning which is a chemical process requires oxygen; combustion reaction typically takes place in the presence of air. The combustion of methane is as follows:
CH4(g) + 2 O2(g) -> CO2(g)+ 2 H2O(g) + energy
One mole of gaseous methane reacts with two oxygen molecules to form a carbon dioxide molecule, and two water molecules which is given off as water vapor. The reaction involves the release of heat.</span>
