Try using System Preferences to set a custom key binding for all applications for the "Window" menu's "Bring all to front." Still not quite universal, but 90% plus of the apps I use have it.
What makes ozone unique from regular O2? Not the structure, but the fact it is unstable.
Ozone is unique from regular diatomic oxygen in that it has 3 oxygen atoms, a huge, structural difference.
There are over 10 different isotopes of oxygen. Are you trying to tell me that no matter what other element one of those ten isotopes bonds to, the end result is that form of oxygen is exactly the same, ie there is no difference in the amount of time it takes for that particular molecule to degrade? This is one of the FEW differences isotopes have between each other.
Again, wrong. To a chemist, there is no appreciable difference between the naturally-occurring (non-radioactive) isotopes. An ozone molecule composed entirely of Oxygen-18 reacts equivalently to an ozone molecule composed entirely of Oxygen-16. That's why both (and all) forms of oxygen are called the same thing, oxygen.
Also, you still failed to explain how the oxygen available to a chemist in a lab is different from oxygen in atmospheric ozone. How do chemists end up with these alleged different isotopes that atmospheric ozone lacks?
I could easily see how different isotopes will produce forms of ozone that have differing levels of stability. Do you even know what an isotope is? Or how molecules form?
You're correct for once, different isotopes of oxygen can lead to unstable ozone molecules, but chemists wouldn't ever use those isotopes. They would use the same naturally occurring oxygen that atmospheric ozone is made of.
Additionally, even if radioactive isotopes were used, the ozone would show the same bonding behaviors. It only would be unstable in the respect that the oxygen would decompose into simpler products, which would bond differently than oxygen does and not be oxygen. Basically, it comes down to the same chemical versus physical difference that you continue to confuse. Ozone composed of radioactive isotopes would still bond identically to regular ozone, and thus have the same chemical properties. The radioactive-isotope ozone would just exist for a shorter time period.
I believe I have proven adequate knowledge of isomers. How molecules form is not germane to this discussion.
Further, I wasn't referring to ozone specifically. You said that all molecules are identical, if they are composed of the same quantity of atoms. Not only is that false from the isomer standpoint which you casually mentioned, but it is wrong given the number of neutrons frequently varies, especially in places like the stratosphere that are constantly bombared by solar radiation!!!
I did not say all molecules are identical if composed of the same quantity of atoms. In fact, I never made any statement about molecules other than ozone in my original post, nor did I even refer to a quantity of atoms. I'm not sure which part of my post you are referring to, but if you could explain to me how you couldn't understand my words, I can try to phrase it more simply.
Wrong. Ozone has the same amounts of each oxygen isotope as are naturally present on Earth, whether the oxygen was created in a lab or in nature.
Perhaps you meant that lab ozone is an isomer of naturally-occurring ozone, but still, you'd be wrong, as ozone is resonant. Its bonds are not normal single and double bonds, but rather somwehere in between. Thus, the molecule is always symmetrical and has no isomers.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it means like the "Trusted zone" in Internet Explorer on Windows.
Try using System Preferences to set a custom key binding for all applications for the "Window" menu's "Bring all to front." Still not quite universal, but 90% plus of the apps I use have it.
That's how they do it. The fundamental units have been redefined several times, but to those who aren't scientists, the changes go unnoticed.
Not trolling, just playing the fool.
You misspelled "Urals."
No
Didn't you hear? Apple is already making a PowerBook G5. And a tabletMac. And an iPhone. And dual-processor PowerBooks. And iPod video.
Good job proving his point.
You no longer need to ask if you speak English?
What makes ozone unique from regular O2? Not the structure, but the fact it is unstable.
Ozone is unique from regular diatomic oxygen in that it has 3 oxygen atoms, a huge, structural difference.
There are over 10 different isotopes of oxygen. Are you trying to tell me that no matter what other element one of those ten isotopes bonds to, the end result is that form of oxygen is exactly the same, ie there is no difference in the amount of time it takes for that particular molecule to degrade? This is one of the FEW differences isotopes have between each other.
Again, wrong. To a chemist, there is no appreciable difference between the naturally-occurring (non-radioactive) isotopes. An ozone molecule composed entirely of Oxygen-18 reacts equivalently to an ozone molecule composed entirely of Oxygen-16. That's why both (and all) forms of oxygen are called the same thing, oxygen.
Also, you still failed to explain how the oxygen available to a chemist in a lab is different from oxygen in atmospheric ozone. How do chemists end up with these alleged different isotopes that atmospheric ozone lacks?
I could easily see how different isotopes will produce forms of ozone that have differing levels of stability. Do you even know what an isotope is? Or how molecules form?
You're correct for once, different isotopes of oxygen can lead to unstable ozone molecules, but chemists wouldn't ever use those isotopes. They would use the same naturally occurring oxygen that atmospheric ozone is made of.
Additionally, even if radioactive isotopes were used, the ozone would show the same bonding behaviors. It only would be unstable in the respect that the oxygen would decompose into simpler products, which would bond differently than oxygen does and not be oxygen. Basically, it comes down to the same chemical versus physical difference that you continue to confuse. Ozone composed of radioactive isotopes would still bond identically to regular ozone, and thus have the same chemical properties. The radioactive-isotope ozone would just exist for a shorter time period.
I believe I have proven adequate knowledge of isomers. How molecules form is not germane to this discussion.
Further, I wasn't referring to ozone specifically. You said that all molecules are identical, if they are composed of the same quantity of atoms. Not only is that false from the isomer standpoint which you casually mentioned, but it is wrong given the number of neutrons frequently varies, especially in places like the stratosphere that are constantly bombared by solar radiation!!!
I did not say all molecules are identical if composed of the same quantity of atoms. In fact, I never made any statement about molecules other than ozone in my original post, nor did I even refer to a quantity of atoms. I'm not sure which part of my post you are referring to, but if you could explain to me how you couldn't understand my words, I can try to phrase it more simply.
Wrong. Ozone has the same amounts of each oxygen isotope as are naturally present on Earth, whether the oxygen was created in a lab or in nature.
Perhaps you meant that lab ozone is an isomer of naturally-occurring ozone, but still, you'd be wrong, as ozone is resonant. Its bonds are not normal single and double bonds, but rather somwehere in between. Thus, the molecule is always symmetrical and has no isomers.