All atomic numbers are positive integers. Strontium's atomic number is 38.
Strontium is a metal element. Atomic mass of it is 88.
49
If you mean its atomic number, it is 15.
The atomic number is an integer, equivalent to number of protons in the atomic nucleus.
Only integer multiples of the elementary charge (1.6 x 10^-19 coulombs) are observed in matter on the atomic scale. Non-integer or half-integer values of charge are not observed in nature.
To express chlorine (Cl) as an integer, you can use its atomic number, which is 17. This indicates that a neutral chlorine atom has 17 protons in its nucleus. In terms of its most common ion, Cl⁻, it has gained one electron, but the integer representation remains the atomic number 17. Therefore, Cl can be represented as the integer 17.
positive charge
In the atomic nucleus the positive particle is the proton.
No. Atomic mass is a measure of mass, not charge.
The atomic mass unit is 1/12 from the atomic mass of the isotope 12C.
Barium, a chemical element with the symbol Ba, has an atomic number of 56. This means that, when expressed as an integer, Barium is represented by the number 56.
The question doesn't make a lot of sense. Both of those are numeric values; they don't have a "charge" in any meaningful sense. The overall charge on the nucleus is the same as the atomic number; that's about the only connection between these concepts that I can think of. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, the atomic number is a positive integer that is equal to the number of protons in the nucleus - but the electrical charge on a proton is +1. Also, the atomic mass of a nucleus is practically NEVER an integral multiple of anything. An exception: The atomic mass of a carbon-12 nucleus is exactly 12.00000 atomic mass units (amu) by definition. The atomic mass of some other isotope of some other element might be something like 34.5 amu, which is definitely not an integer in any way. D.A.W.