I asked a very related question to this a few days ago and got no intelligent answers. I'm going to try this again. I doubt you're gonna find this one on the internet. Anyone who answers this is going to have to know how mass spectrometers work and why ambiguities occur. Lets find out who's smart.
119367
Mass spectrometers are only able to record the total weight on an atom that passes through. Since oxygen isotopes are measured by reacting calcium carbonate with acid to form carbon dioxide, the mass spectrometer reveals the molecular weight of each carbon dioxide molecule. Assuming carbon-12, there are then 6 possible combinations of carbon dioxide that the mass spectrometer will record.\n\nThe oxygen combinations can be O-16 and O-18; O-16 and O-17; O-16 and O-16; O-17 and O-17, O-17 and O-18, and O-18 and O-18. The mass spectrometer will then record masses of 46, 45, 44, 46, 47, and 48 for these. So you can see that you will not be able to tell the difference between O-16/O-18 and O-17/O-17 because they both come to 46. That is why you have to independently determine how much O-17 is in the sample and correct for the ambiguity.
523448
this question is sooo odd. there is no way someone will no this without actually doing an experiment. you dont deserve to pass the class if you didnt do an experiment to find it.
639498
I think the author of the article linked to in your referenced web page (it's the link below) explains it well. One of the many  fundamental constants, the Fine Structure Constant, may have changed very slightly -- or it may not have. The data acquired so far is not conclusive, especially as decided by the scientific establishment, which generally demands pretty overwhelming proof of such a radical idea. And as the author says, confirming evidence must be obtained not merely from more iterations of the same experiment, but from totally different kinds of experiment, and he adds that precision in these other experiment types is not yet high enough to be useful as a proof.
522709
wow... you really do know your chemistry - sorry again, can't help you but I wish you ALLLLLLL the best, and must say the folks who answered - if they are infact correct, very nice.\n\ngood luck in whatever you are trying to figure out.
155677
i learned about this in chem.  it's hard to explain...but if you put a cd in your microwave(if your parents allow u 2) then you can see it.  if u need help, you could e-mail my teacher by getting his e-mail address from his website below.  hope that helps!
412493
That's a good question.  I don't know if this is answering your question, but I do know that mass cannot be created or destroyed due to the Conservation of Mass.
415849
for those questions, all you have to do is translate them into the equation\ncheck chemtutor.com for hellp, it explains it much clearer than i can
334559
Is everyone nuts?  What is hard to understand?  I have done that before.  But I don't know how accurate I can know them.  Infact I am doing that with you right now!  Every once In a while I will find someone and do that too!!!! 8-)
59130
Hey I'm studying physical and chemical equilibrium too, currently.The answer is that it will definitely have units when the concentrations have different powers.Just try and work it out with the units and it will be very clear.
346937
Your data doesn't support your hypothesis or the formula.\nLook for reasons that you may have had measuring error or experimental error.
489202
You might want to try to re-read the questions.  You don't appear to be understanding what is written there.  (I call it a brain fart, but three out of 28 indicates a little lack of understanding)\n\nIf you have re-read the problems, then I offer the below:\n\nYou might want to go over your notes about what a mole is.  It is an amount and a number.  It is a fundamental conceptual building block for the study of chemistry.\n\n  It looks like you expect to be able to plug and chug on these.  Which you can, once you start thinking in terms of atoms and molecules.  Plugging and chugging BEFORE you understand what these little pieces are doing is a recipe for a C.\nIt IS the ATOMIC theory of matter, don't you know.\n\nSo, once you've absorbed that, re-read these three problems.\n\nStill no joy?  Read on, Gunga DIn\n\nFirst H(g) is NOT the element's standard state! I thought everybody learned in grade school about H2 gas - the simplest molecule?  Iodine, I leave to you  (hint a gas???!!! not)\n\nSecond lets see you're making umpteen moles of something and calculate the dS.  that was not the question.  (hint: something about ONE mole)\n\nThird read the problem. your chemical equation is from I don't know where but not from what is in the problem. (hint: products on the LEFT???)
428472
It is tough to answer this question without knowing what the experimental procedure was or what the aluminum foil was used for.  More detail please.
8885
With modern chemistry and quantum physics knowledge, we know 104 elements. \n\nAn element is defined by proton count, which in turn determines the number of electrons in orbit. Hence we know we aren't missing any elements in between, all numbers between 1 and 104 are known.\n\nThis leaves elements with proton counts of 105 or greater. The greatest difficulty in identifying these is that they are extremely unstable. The observer needs to be lucky and skilled to observe one of these superheavy elements before it decays.\n\nEven more so since these elements are produced by colliding heavy ions at high speed, creating lots of  energy at the collision. Capturing such an element and identifying its mass charge ration in a mass spectrometer or getting spectroscopical data that can be fitted to the theoretical energies one would expect is hard under these circumstances.
556783
Sure, it makes logical sense as an idea. But how helpful are these categories in reasoning? I dont imagine that they would be very helpful at all since it is very unlikely to ever find two things that are exactly alike. They might look alike but dont forget about the very subatomic particles which comprise them. Just food for thought.
120806
Unless a equation is properly balanced the amount of product and reactant will not be the same, I suppose this is like a recipe where u get the proper number of ingredients(moles) and mix to together to give the you the proper number of products.
357648
This sounds like a lab question and we don't have the details. Possible differences are lab versus standard conditions, quality of equipment, and impure reagents.
521944
Doesn't that have something to do with Einstein's e=mc^2?  It sure looks like it.  The rest of seems to be an example of an explanation of the inefficiency of practical mass to energy conversions.  I could be wrong.\n\nOh, by the way:  what are you asking?