I have combined your posts since it is essentially the same question.
We only post a given question once on the forum.
This is a forum policy.
Click on the link near the top center of the forum page.
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting.
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=65859.0

Pyrolysis is long known, though not in every detail because so many reactants and products are involved. Wiki for instance should tell more.

The gaseous (and condensible) products include things of little value like water vapour and carbon dioxide, plus gases that can burn, for instance CO and methanol, plus dirty things like tar which are used because they're available.

The products of wood pyrolysis are similar to coal pyrolysis (but not the same). They are toxic too, and use to have even less value. I've heard of no present commercial use. But when gasoline was unavailable, some people ran their car from the gases.

I heard that, you could extract useful hydrocarbons, such as benzene, xylene and toluene from the destructive distillation of wood and charcoal.

The following question arises from a set of statements from which I'm asked to state whether they are true or false.

This is as follows:

Indicate which of the following statements are true or false:

1. On [itex]\underset{np}{\underline{\uparrow}\,\underline{\uparrow}\,\underline{\downarrow}}[/itex] there is a transgression to Hund's rule of maximum multiplicity

2. The given box notation [itex]\underset{np}{\underline{\uparrow\,\uparrow}}[/itex] is a transgression to Pauli's exclusion principle.

3. The following configuration [itex]1s^22s^22p^13s^1[/itex] is a transgression to Pauli's exclusion principle.

4. The electron configuration of Silver [itex](Z=47)[/itex] is [itex][Kr]5s^{1}4d^{10}[/itex].

5. Two chemical species with the same number of electrons not necessarily have the same configuration.

Given these statements I found it difficult to make a proper interpretation of what was intended with the fifth and the first option.

The second option is true. As two electrons occupying the same orbital cannot have the same quantum numbers.

The third option is not true due that's not a transgression to Pauli's exclussion principle. But rather to Aufbau's build up principle. Because it states that the electrons will occupy the orbital with the lowest energy possible.

The fourth option is correct, that's the electron configuration of Silver.

But the problem arises from the first option as I don't know if it does make a transgression to Hund's principle of maximum multiplicity?. As I understand there isn't any reason to justify that the electron will always have to be filled with a [itex]m_s=-\frac{1}{2}[/itex]. It only states that the most stable configuration will be the one where electrons fill the most orbitals as possible.

Then the fifth option is a bit hard to understand, as I don't get very clear what's the meaning of chemical species. I'm assuming since this question is related with atomic structure chapter, it is referring to atoms. In the given context ions more specifically, and understood in such way it does say that two isoelectronic atoms will not have the same configuration. But is that possible?. How can it be justified?. Help please!

Then we are not talking about the nickel metal which would be a reducing agent, but about a cation which is not.

the compound gets oxygen but in this case not oxidation? how can there is extra O attached to Cr without Cr being oxidized?