Answer: mass
Explanation: the protons and neutrons make up the nucleus and nearly the entire mass of the atom
we have a total of three times the original number (6.923 * 10**-7) moles of all ions, or 2.077 * 10**-6 moles of ions
<h3>What is aragonite-strontianite solid solution dissolution in nonstoichiometric Sr (HCO3)2 solutions?</h3>
Synthetic strontianite-aragonite solid-solution minerals were dissolved in non-stoichiometric CO2-saturated Sr(HCO3)2 and Ca(HCO3)2 solutions at 25°C. The reactions in Sr(HCO3)2 solutions frequently become incongruent, precipitating a Sr-rich phase before attaining stoichiometric saturation. Mechanical mixes of solids approach stoichiometric saturation in terms of the least stable solid in the combination.
This surficial phase has a thickness of 0-10 atomic layers in Sr(HCO3)2 solutions and a thickness of 0-4 layers in Ca(HCO3)2 solutions and dissolves and/or recrystallizes within 6 minutes of reaction.
learn more about Sr (HCO3)2 refer
brainly.com/question/24667072
#SPJ4
<h2>
Hello!</h2>
The answer is:
The empirical formula is the option B. 
<h2>
Why?</h2>
The empirical formula of a compound is the simplest formula that can be written. On the opposite, the molecular formula involves a variant of the same compound, but it can be also simplified to an empirical formula.
We are looking for a formula that cannot be simplified by dividing the number of molecules/atoms that conforms the compound.
Let's discard option by option in order to find which formula is an empirical formula (cannot be simplified)
A. 
It's not an empirical formula, it's a molecular formula since it can be obtained by multiplying the empirical formula of the same compound.
B.
It's an empirical formula since it cannot be obtained by the multiplication of a whole number and the simplest formula. It's the simplest formula that we can find of the compound.
C. 
It's not an empirical formula, it's a molecular formula since it can be obtained by multiplying the empirical formula of the same compound.
D. 
It's not an empirical formula, it's a molecular formula since it can be obtained by multiplying the empirical formula of the same compound.
Hence, the empirical formula is the option B.
Have a nice day!
<span>conductor because it conducts the electrons</span><span />
The Lyman series can be expressed in the formula <span><span>1/λ</span>=<span>RH</span><span>(1−<span>1/<span>n2</span></span>) where </span><span><span>RH</span>=1.0968×<span>107</span><span>m<span>−1</span></span>=<span><span>13.6eV</span><span>hc
</span></span></span></span>Where n is a natural number greater than or equal to 2 (i.e. n = 2,3,4,...). Therefore, the lines seen in the image above are the wavelengths corresponding to n=2 on the right, to n=∞on the left (there are infinitely many spectral lines, but they become very dense as they approach to n=∞<span> (Lyman limit), so only some of the first lines and the last one appear).
The wavelengths (nm) in the Lyman series are all ultraviolet
:2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Wavelength (nm) 121.6 102.6 97.3 95 93.8 93.1 92.6 92.3 92.1 91.9 91.18 (Lyman limit)
In your case for the n=5 line you have to replace "n" in the above formula for 5 and you should get a value of 95 x 10^-9 m for the wavelength. then you have to use the other equation that convert wavelength to frequency. </span>
