Difference in kind

The transition metals form complexes which are usually different in kind and in stability from those formed by the nontransition elements. Give reasons for these differences. 

These two quantities are proportional to one another and may be numerically equal, although they are essentially different in kind and are therefore not identical. The distinction is particularly useful when considering the energy of a body or of a fluid. 

The majority of ligands are either neutral or anionic. Those which coordinate to a metal ion through a single atom are described as monodentate or unidentate. Examples of such ligands which we have encountered thus far include water, ammonia and chloride. A more extensive listing of common ligands is found in Table 1-3. We stress at this point that there is no difference in kind between the interactions of a metal centre with either neutral or anionic ligands. 

But we must be careful with our words when we say these are different types of photon, we do not mean that they are different in kind, only in magnitude. In kind, all photons are identical each comprises a packet of energy, which is termed a quantum, because the amount of energy in each photon is quantized (or fixed ). 

It now remains to place the concept of an ester as an active species into a wider chemical context, with special reference to polymerisation catalysts. Sinn and Patat [39] have emphasised the distinction between monofunctional and bifunctional catalytic systems and this distinction is obviously and necessarily related to the idea, explained above, that there is a difference in kind between polarised molecules and the ions which can be formed from them. Whereas the carbonium and other cations as reactive species are monofunctional, the esters evidently belong to the class of bifunctional catalysts their mode of action - the addition of their constituent parts across a double bond - is, in modern terminology, an insertion reaction. In this context, we must note the important... 

Note health hazards associated with inadequate intakes are different in kind from those associated vuith excess... 

The NAACP proved that its members and potential members—now predominantly African-Americans—did suffer relatively more harm from the nuisance created by the defendant through the unnecessary illegal availabil-ity of guns in New York.. . . It failed, however, to show that its harm was different in kind from that suffered by other persons in New York. 

In respect of persons who were in ill health previous to exposure, we have paid particular attention to cases of asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. We believe that it must be accepted in principle that exposure to CS may precipitate an acute asthmatic attack, but we found no evidence that such attacks differed in kind or degrees from those attributable to natural causes and, in the cases that we either saw or heard of, we were unable to exclude the possibility that the attacks in mid-August were due to such causes. 

It is important to note that novelty is a relative, not an absolute, property. A thing may be more or less novel in two ways it may be more or less different in kind from what has gone before or it may be more or less new. Novelty also relates to a particular feature or aspect, so something may be novel in one respect but not in others. It may, for example, have a novel design, but use traditional materials, or it may be a traditional design made with novel materials. Most novel artefacts are novel with regard to the form that they take they are novel with respect to the human-constructed world. In contrast, a novel chemical, because it is new matter, is novel with respect to the earth, which previously provided all the material with which humans constructed their world.13 This new matter now takes part in the processes of the earth it enters our bodies, soil, water and air, where it interacts with the natural chemicals it encounters, transforming them and itself. In effect, it starts new processes in nature (Arendt, 1968, p58). 

The difficulties presented by addictive dependency are not necessarily different in kind or degree from other dependencies that we would not want to count as addictions. Attachments that are central to human flourishing make us vulnerable to losses of a similar magnitude.39 It is not just a question of wanted versus unwanted addictions. Unwise attachments are not on that account addictions. 

The molecules and ions contained within a living organism differ in kind and in concentration from those in the organism s surroundings. A Paramecium in a pond, a shark in the ocean, an erythrocyte in the human bloodstream, an apple tree in an orchard—all are different in composition from their surroundings and, once they have reached maturity, all (to a first approximation) maintain a constant composition in the face of constantly changing surroundings. 

The technical applications referred to above can be studied using standard techniques to be described below these differ in kind from those used in the study of catalysis by small molecules. 

C Unexpected Results Different in Degree or Different in Kind ... 

Although Ritter9,17 postulated that the above reactions involve an imidol hydrogen sulfate, Meyers55 has expressed the view that a nitrilium salt may be the intermediate, and this is also the present authors opinion. These reactions are probably no different in kind. Nevertheless, they are not further discussed here since they are reviewed elsewhere in this chapter (Section II, A) and only those aspects of the Ritter reaction which may enable one to draw comparisons with true nitrilium salt reactions will be included, as in the previous section. 

Apart from the creativity that expresses itself in novel odor accords and effects, there is also the inventiveness that leads to new solutions to such problems as masking the base note of a particularly unpleasant-smelling functional product or achieving outstanding diffusion and lasting power in a low-price soap perfume. The question whether the two—we might call them aesthetic and technical creativity—are different in kind has long divided the perfumery profession. Suffice it to say that technical creativity is, from a commercial point of view, every bit as valuable as the aesthetic kind. 

---