Avogadro' Number
Ilya S. Kuprov
6.022 x 10^23 molecules(or atoms, ions...) PER mole of substance.
molecules/mole => 1/mole => mol^-1
Sincerely, Ilya S. Kuprov
David Sparkman
6.023 X 10^23 to 6.022 X 10^23?
Regards;
O. David Sparkman
Consultant-At-Large
o...@compuserve.com
Uncle Al
>
> Can anyone tell me when and why the value for Avogadro's number changed from
> 6.023 X 10^23 to 6.022 X 10^23?
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu/Value?na|search_for=avogadro
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/net2.htm
"Avogadro's number" determination 416 hits
"Avogadro's number" measurement 635 hits
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Ilya S. Kuprov
font supply (roots, powers, ...) to use within simple letters.
Ilya S. Kuprov
Ilya S. Kuprov
(Could be right...)
Ilya S. Kuprov
BillyFish
>Date: Sat, Aug 12, 2000 4:44 PM
>Message-id: <8n4n7j$ovu$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>
>
>Can anyone tell me when and why the value for Avogadro's number changed
>from
>6.023 X 10^23 to 6.022 X 10^23?
It has not changed! If what you say is true, only the published value has
changed.
Bill
Oscar Lanzi III
Well, the atomic mass unit became slightly bigger when we went to a C-12
standard (natural oxygen: 16.0000 old units --> 15.9994 new units), and
so the quotient decreased just enough to change its rounded value.
Faraday's constant also was affected, and so was the gas constant.
Fortunately, the changges are too small to bring about any gross errors,
but it's good science to be sure of a consistent convention.
--OL
Ed McBride
David Sparkman wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me when and why the value for Avogadro's number changed from
> 6.023 X 10^23 to 6.022 X 10^23?
I thought it was always 6.022, but a lot of people, me included,
increased it slightly because that made it so easy to remember.
(6-0-2-3, 1-0-2-3). ed
Owen
according the Atkins's Phys Chem of 6.022 14 X 10^23 mol^-1
Every year I ask my first classes, "Why is the value what it is?" Not
once has anyone given the answer. Most think it has something to do
with nature, rather than the metric system.
John Owen
Victoria BC
John Owen
Victoria BC
Bryan Shelton
>You are probably referring to Avogadro's "constant" which has the value
>according the Atkins's Phys Chem of 6.022 14 X 10^23 mol^-1
The terms Avogadro's "constant" and Avogadro's "number"
are synonymous. The "mol^-1" above appears to be a typo,
or at least highly misleading.
>Every year I ask my first classes, "Why is the value what it is?" Not
>once has anyone given the answer. Most think it has something to do
>with nature, rather than the metric system.
If I were sitting in your class, I would ask, "What do you MEAN, why is
the value what it is?? What kind of an answer are you looking for?
What would you accept as an answer? This question appears
to transcend chemistry, and delve into metaphysics. Please clarify
your question!"
Bryan
David Sparkman
Owen was correct in his correction of my use of term number rather than
constant. The A's number relates to the quantity of atoms or molecules
required for 1 mole. A's constant is the numeric value for that number
which is calculated based on the definition of the unified atomic mass unit
(u) which is 1/12 the mass of the most abundant naturally occurring stable
isotope of carbon (12^C). It turns out that the 6.023 X 10^23 mol^-1 (yes!
this mol^-1 is correct) was the constant when the phusical atomic mass unit
(physical, not chemical amu) was based on the most abumdent naturally
occurring stable isopte of oxygen (16^O).
Owen's question may be somewhat metaphysical; however, it is important to
experience the metaphysical when coming to understand science. I will now
use this question in my classes (giving credit to Owen, of course). The
question is very clear to me.
Regards;
David
O.David Sparkman
Consultant-At-Large
o...@compuserve.com
Bryan Shelton <br...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:D2BAAC009F799384.A090ECF9...@lp.airnews.net...
Bryan Shelton
>Bryan,
>
>Owen was correct in his correction of my use of term number rather than
>constant. The A's number relates to the quantity of atoms or molecules
>required for 1 mole.
So does A's constant! Here is something from the following site:
http://www.tcaep.co.uk/science/constant/detail/avogadroconstant.htm
Science
Constants
Avogadro Constant
Symbol Value
NA 6.02214199(47) в 1023 mol-1
"Avogadro's Constant is the number of atoms in 12g of pure
isotope 12C. It is also the number of molecules in one mole
of any substance."
See? As I pointed out, Avogadro's "number" and "constant" seem to be
used interchangeably. I can't see any distinction between the two.
>A's constant is the numeric value for that number...
Which number? Avogadro's number?
>..which is calculated based on the definition of the unified atomic mass unit
>(u) which is 1/12 the mass of the most abundant naturally occurring stable
>isotope of carbon (12^C).
> It turns out that the 6.023 X 10^23 mol^-1 (yes! this mol^-1 is correct)
Please explain "mol^-1" to me in this context. This seems extremely
confusing and misleading. Is this a cryptic notation for "6.023 X 10^23
atoms (or molecules) per mole"?
>...was the constant when the phusical atomic mass unit
>(physical, not chemical amu) was based on the most abumdent
>naturally occurring stable isopte of oxygen (16^O).
Sure. When you make a subtle change in the definition of atomic
weight, then Avogadro's Number/Constant is also going to shift
slightly as a result.
>Owen's question may be somewhat metaphysical; however, it is important to
>experience the metaphysical when coming to understand science. I will now
>use this question in my classes (giving credit to Owen, of course). The
>question is very clear to me.
Ok, tell me what answer YOU are looking for,
since I still don't understand the question!
Bryan
Bryan Shelton
>6.022 x 10^23 mol^-1 and the last is no typoo.
>
>6.022 x 10^23 molecules(or atoms, ions...) PER mole of substance.
>
>molecules/mole => 1/mole => mol^-1
Thanks. I figured that might be the meaning.
I still think it's a poor way to communicate it.
Bryan
aha...@boulder.nist.gov
<322AD938280B56F5.6F751E04...@lp.airnews.net>,
br...@airmail.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote:
>
> > (yes! this mol^-1 is correct)
>
> Please explain "mol^-1" to me in this context. This seems extremely
> confusing and misleading. Is this a cryptic notation for "6.023 X
> 10^23 atoms (or molecules) per mole"?
Yes, mol^-1 is correct. The idea is that Avogadro's constant (or
Avogadro's number; I'm not aware of a distinction between the two
terms) is the number of "entities" per mole. "Entities" being
dimensionless. So it isn't just atoms or molecules per mole, there
would also be that many elephants in a mole of elephants, for example.
mol^-1 is listed as the units of the official CODATA values.
Incidentally, the documentation of the current accepted best values for
such physical constants is given in:
P.J. Mohr and B.N. Taylor, "CODATA Recommended Values of the
Fundamental Physical Constants: 1998," J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, vol.
28, pp. 1713-1852 (1999).
These values of the constants are available over the Web at:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, NIST
"Don't blame the government for what I say, or vice-versa."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Owen
constant (not "number" because numbers don't have units) is the value it
is because any number other than 6 X 10^23 would not allow us to go from
the micro world of atoms and molecules to the macro world of piles of
"stuff" merely by changing the units.
(I'll use "weigh" instead of "has a mass of" because I'm lazy)
If one hydrogen atom weighs 1 u (atomic mass unit, 1.66X10^-24g), then
one pile of them can weigh anything we want it to weigh. The secret is
to concentrate, not on the size of the pile, but on the weight of the
pile. As we used the gram as our unit of weight, let's have a pile that
weighs 1g.
micro world macro world
H 1 atom = 1u 1 pile of them = 1g
H2O 1 molecule = 18u 1 pile with the same number = 18g
sugar 1 molecule = 222u 1 pile with the same number = 222g
Being classy folk, we use the Latin for "pile" which is "mole"
If Avogadro's constant were not 6X10^23 mol^-1 then
1 molecule of water = 18u, 1 mole of them = either more or less than
18g. What a mess. We'd have to know two numbers, one for the weigh of
the molecule, and another for the weight of a mole. No way. Being
simple folk, we've made sure that our pile is just the right size so
that we can go from the micro to the macro world (and vice versa) merely
by changing the units. Sneaky.
Some of the faster students realize that 6X10^23 is nothing more then
the reciprocal of 1.66X10^-24. Nothing metaphysical is there?
Why are there 12 (rather than any other number) in a dozen?
Answer: Because the Brits liked to measure in 12s.
12 pennies to the shilling and 12 inches to the foot
1 object costs 7.345 pennies 1 dozen cost 7.345 shillings
Again, all we need do is change the units, not the number.
cheers
John Owen
Victoria BC
Mark Tarka
> It's a pity it is not us, who invent networks. I wish it had a better
> font supply (roots, powers, ...) to use within simple letters.
You'll find no sympathy here...6.022x10(23) in your
favorite monitor display colors and font is still
the number...cope with it.
Mark (As simple as one gets... :-)
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> Mark (As simple as one gets... :-)
too true. if one were to be any more simple than Miss Tarka, one would
have to be positively protozoan in nature.
King Bufford of AHWW
>
> Ilya S. Kuprov wrote:
> > It's a pity it is not us, who invent networks. I wish it had a better
> > font supply (roots, powers, ...) to use within simple letters.
>
> You'll find no sympathy here.
You either, fuckhead.
Bob
<o...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Can anyone tell me when and why the value for Avogadro's number changed from
>6.023 X 10^23 to 6.022 X 10^23?
>
Here are the values from a couple of old "Chem 1" books...
Pauling, 1970. 6.023x10^23 mol^(-1).
Waser, 1976. 6.022x10^23 mol^(-1). (He also notes that an 1865
measurement gave 5x10^23.)
If both of those really reflected "current" information, then you have
a good narrowing down of the date. Both books note that their value is
based on C-12; this excludes that the switch from O to C-12 scales was
the main reason for the change you note. I would bet it was simply due
to improved measurements.
Interestingly, my 1983 CRC Handbook gives 6.022 -- but states that the
uncertainty is about 1%. (They also give the units as gm^(-1), which
is nonsense.)
Someone else asked about the units of N being given as mol^(-1). That
is quite common. One can easily define N so that it is dimensionless,
but understanding/writing it with the units of mol^(-1) is very
helpful for students.
bob
Bob
wrote:
>
>See? As I pointed out, Avogadro's "number" and "constant" seem to be
>used interchangeably. I can't see any distinction between the two.
Certainly, in common usage they are interchangeable.
>
>Please explain "mol^-1" to me in this context. This seems extremely
>confusing and misleading. Is this a cryptic notation for "6.023 X 10^23
>atoms (or molecules) per mole"?
Not sure what your concern is. If you are saying that mol^-1 should be
written as 1/mol.... It is now considered best form and proper form to
not have units in the denominator. It is "clearer" (or at least is
considered better) to show a unit with a negative exponent than to
show it in the denominator. This is SI policy.
bob
Bryan Shelton
>I never realized I was delving into the metaphysical. Avogadro's
>constant (not "number" because numbers don't have units)...
John, that's horse-shit. When something is *defined* as the number
of atoms in a gram-atomic weight of an element or the number of
molecules in a gram-molecular weight of a compound, then that
something is indeed a unit-less *number*, as Bob pointed out; and
we call that number: Avogadro's Number. It is 6.022 X 10^23.
For your information, *all* the textbooks I have refer to A's Number,
and not A's Constant! But it's not really important: they mean the
same thing. They differ only in nuance.
>...is the value it is because
>any number other than 6 X 10^23 would not allow us to go from
>the micro world of atoms and molecules to the macro world of piles
>of "stuff" merely by changing the units.
>
>(I'll use "weigh" instead of "has a mass of" because I'm lazy)
>
>If one hydrogen atom weighs 1 u (atomic mass unit, 1.66X10^-24g), then
>one pile of them can weigh anything we want it to weigh. The secret is
>to concentrate, not on the size of the pile, but on the weight of the
>pile. As we used the gram as our unit of weight, let's have a pile that
>weighs 1g.
>
> micro world macro world
>H 1 atom = 1u 1 pile of them = 1g
>H2O 1 molecule = 18u 1 pile with the same number = 18g
>sugar 1 molecule = 222u 1 pile with the same number = 222g
>
>Being classy folk, we use the Latin for "pile" which is "mole"
>
>If Avogadro's constant were not 6X10^23 mol^-1 then
>
>1 molecule of water = 18u, 1 mole of them = either more or less than
>18g. What a mess. We'd have to know two numbers, one for the weigh of
>the molecule, and another for the weight of a mole. No way. Being
>simple folk, we've made sure that our pile is just the right size so
>that we can go from the micro to the macro world (and vice versa) merely
>by changing the units. Sneaky.
>
>Some of the faster students realize that 6X10^23 is nothing more then
>the reciprocal of 1.66X10^-24. Nothing metaphysical is there?
The question you pose to your classes is rather odd and metaphysical,
and furthermore you haven't answered it above. Forgive me for saying
this, John, but you have a talent for ambiguity and obfuscation! I *still*
can't make any sense out of "...allows us to go from the micro-world
to the macro-world". That's incredibly vague. I'm going to give you a
better answer to your own question in just a moment, but let me make
another comment first:
Imagine you were teaching a math class, and you posed a question
to the class: "Why is the value of pi what it is?" Can you imagine the
puzzled looks you would get from the students? I would have been
almost as puzzled if I'd been sitting in your class and you had asked,
"Why is Avogadro's Number what it is?" The simple, direct answer I
would have given you (after wondering what the point of the question
was) is that that's the experimentally verified number, given the two
physical definitions that determine it. These two critical definitions
are that the atomic weight of that certain carbon isotope is arbitrarily
set to exactly 12.000, and that a gram is defined as the weight of one
milliliter of water at 4 degrees Centigrade. With these definitions, one
gram-atomic weight of any element has been measured to contain
6.022 X 10^23 atoms of that element. We call this Avogadro's Number.
I think what you were trying to ask the students (without making your
question very clear at all) is: "What is the *utility* of measuring chemical
compounds in moles, rather than simple weights?" This is the way
you should have phrased it, rather than the ambiguous way you did.
Then you could have gone on to explain (or have explained to you
by the brighter students) that in quantitative chemical work, it's often
easier to deal with relative *numbers* of atoms and molecules, rather
than relative *weights*.
Bryan
Bryan Shelton
>Someone else asked about the units of N being given as mol^(-1). That
>is quite common. One can easily define N so that it is dimensionless,
>but understanding/writing it with the units of mol^(-1) is very
>helpful for students.
I don't see that. It seems very confusing, ambiguous, even pedantic.
To me, "mol^(-1)" does NOT imply "per mole".
Bryan
Bryan Shelton
>>Please explain "mol^-1" to me in this context. This seems extremely
>>confusing and misleading. Is this a cryptic notation for "6.023 X 10^23
>>atoms (or molecules) per mole"?
>
>Not sure what your concern is. If you are saying that mol^-1 should be
>written as 1/mol.... It is now considered best form and proper form to
>not have units in the denominator. It is "clearer" (or at least is
>considered better) to show a unit with a negative exponent than to
>show it in the denominator. This is SI policy.
No, what you said above is not my concern. My concern is including
the word "mole" in what *appears* to be a mathematical term that
really is NOT a mathematical term. We do use similar constructs in
everyday usage, but it's only rather colloquial. For instance, one can
imagine an agricultural textbook saying something like: "American
apple orchards have a higher apple yield than any other country:
an average of 83.7/tree". Now imagine if they phrased it THIS way:
"...an average of 83.7 tree^(-1)" See what I mean? It would be ludicrous!
And I think that saying "6.022 X 10^23 mol^(-1)" is almost as bad.
Bryan
Bob
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:54:38 GMT, bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob) wrote:
I see. (That is, I see what your concern is.) Why doesn't it, since
mole^-1 _means_ mole in the denominator, which means per mole..
Implied question... Are you of "an older generation"??? If so, it may
be fair to note that the common conventions have changed. Those of us
who teach chem have had to keep track of this. I probably wouldn't
have written mol^-1 when I was in college. And I often don't now --
not because it is wrong, but simply my personal comfort level.
bob
Bob
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 02:05:57 GMT, bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob) wrote:
>
>>>Please explain "mol^-1" to me in this context. This seems extremely
>>>confusing and misleading. Is this a cryptic notation for "6.023 X 10^23
>>>atoms (or molecules) per mole"?
>>
>>Not sure what your concern is. If you are saying that mol^-1 should be
>>written as 1/mol.... It is now considered best form and proper form to
>>not have units in the denominator. It is "clearer" (or at least is
>>considered better) to show a unit with a negative exponent than to
>>show it in the denominator. This is SI policy.
>
>No, what you said above is not my concern. My concern is including
>the word "mole" in what *appears* to be a mathematical term that
>really is NOT a mathematical term. We do use similar constructs in
>everyday usage, but it's only rather colloquial. For instance, one can
>imagine an agricultural textbook saying something like: "American
>apple orchards have a higher apple yield than any other country:
>an average of 83.7/tree". Now imagine if they phrased it THIS way:
>"...an average of 83.7 tree^(-1)" See what I mean? It would be ludicrous!
It would be quite correct. Both 83.7/tree and 83.7 tree^(-1) mean the
same thing, and the latter would be "preferred form".
The only other issue might be whether the word apples should be in
there. But simple counts of things, whether apples or molecules, are
not SI units.
Maybe you could clarify this by saying what you think would be the
proper way to say it. (After writing this, I did see your other msg,
and replied to it. That may supersede this.)
bob
Dr. Dickie
<C1D3922FD80D2AE1.63862761...@lp.airnews.net>,
br...@airmail.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:54:38 GMT, bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob)
wrote:
>
> >Someone else asked about the units of N being given as mol^(-1). That
> >is quite common. One can easily define N so that it is dimensionless,
> >but understanding/writing it with the units of mol^(-1) is very
> >helpful for students.
>
> I don't see that. It seems very confusing, ambiguous, even pedantic.
> To me, "mol^(-1)" does NOT imply "per mole".
>
>
Okay. There is you and there is the rest of the world. I would think
(based on the way I have seen it expressed in textbooks and I think
Journals) that to most of the rest of the world mol^(-1) does mean per
mole. Unless you are hung up on the way it must be presented when you
cannot use superscript?
--
Dr. Dickie
-----------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
A. Einstein
-----------
Dr. Steve Simpson
>
> In article
> <C1D3922FD80D2AE1.63862761...@lp.airnews.net>,
> br...@airmail.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:54:38 GMT, bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob)
> wrote:
> >
> > >Someone else asked about the units of N being given as mol^(-1). That
> > >is quite common. One can easily define N so that it is dimensionless,
> > >but understanding/writing it with the units of mol^(-1) is very
> > >helpful for students.
> >
> > I don't see that. It seems very confusing, ambiguous, even pedantic.
> > To me, "mol^(-1)" does NOT imply "per mole".
> >
> > Bryan
> >
>
> Okay. There is you and there is the rest of the world. I would think
> (based on the way I have seen it expressed in textbooks and I think
> Journals) that to most of the rest of the world mol^(-1) does mean per
> mole. Unless you are hung up on the way it must be presented when you
> cannot use superscript?
>
> --
> Dr. Dickie
> -----------------
One of the requirements of giving dimensions to a unit is that when the
unit is used in an equation, the units are identical on both the left
and right hand sides.
For example consider PV = NRT ; you should see why N has to be in units
of "per mole" or mol^(-1).
Bob
<S.J.S...@salford.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>One of the requirements of giving dimensions to a unit is that when the
>unit is used in an equation, the units are identical on both the left
>and right hand sides.
agreed
>
>For example consider PV = NRT ; you should see why N has to be in units
>of "per mole" or mol^(-1).
Well, you may have had the best of intentions, but the example is
quite incorrect.
the eqn is PV = nRT. And regardless of what symbol you use, the n
(your N) is the number of moles -- not Avogadro's number. The units of
n are mol, not mol^(-1). Check the units!
bob
Owen
k = R/N (help, I know that "^" means superscript, but what do I put for
subscript?) I want to write NsubscriptedA
Anyway, it's the gas constant/Avogadros' constant
k = 8.314 J mol^-1 K^-1/ 6.022 X 10^23 mol^-1
= 1.381 X 10^23 J K^-1
Pia Danilo
Italian I have a not good english). My professor teach me that :"if youy
need and have enough money you could buy an avogadro'Number of sofà"
maybe this is the best definition for the user. I found this very clear.
what you think about this?
"Bob" <bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:399b33bc...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:14:20 GMT, br...@airmail.net (Bryan Shelton)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 02:05:57 GMT, bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob)
wrote:
> >
> >>>confusing and misleading. Is this a cryptic notation for "6.023 X
10^23
> >>>atoms (or molecules) per mole"?
> >>
Pia Danilo
I'm a student, I think its easier to remeber 6.022X10^22 on Avogadro, cause
in that way I remember even 22.414.
"David Sparkman" <o...@compuserve.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:8n4n7j$ovu$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
> Can anyone tell me when and why the value for Avogadro's number changed
from
> 6.023 X 10^23 to 6.022 X 10^23?
>
Bob
<dani...@tiscalinet.it> wrote:
>Excuse me I'm a Student and I hope you don't misunderstand me (caus I'm
>Italian I have a not good english). My professor teach me that :"if youy
>need and have enough money you could buy an avogadro'Number of sofà"
>maybe this is the best definition for the user. I found this very clear.
>what you think about this?
That might be true in principle. But think about how much space it
would take. Even if you bought things that had volume of only 1 mL (1
cm^3), Avogadro's Number (a mole) of them would fill up the Pacific
Ocean.
bob
Fred Kasner
to make ten to the 23 power of any sizable object is beyond the scope of
mankind.
FK
Pia Danilo wrote:
>
> Excuse me I'm a Student and I hope you don't misunderstand me (caus I'm
> Italian I have a not good english). My professor teach me that :"if youy
> need and have enough money you could buy an avogadro'Number of sofà"
> maybe this is the best definition for the user. I found this very clear.
> what you think about this?
> "Bob" <bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:399b33bc...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:14:20 GMT, br...@airmail.net (Bryan Shelton)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 02:05:57 GMT, bbr...@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Bob)
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>Please explain "mol^-1" to me in this context. This seems extremely
> > >>>confusing and misleading. Is this a cryptic notation for "6.023 X
> 10^23
> > >>>atoms (or molecules) per mole"?
> > >>
Roman A Kresinski
Perhaps Pia Danilo's point was that if you have a dozen
sofas or a mole, that is a difference in scale, not a
category error such as confusing parameters with differing
units. It's a point worth considering, and adds to my own
ambivalence as whether to write 'Avogadro's concept' with
units of mol^(-1) or without. 'Avogadro's number' written
with units would imply a definition of a mole based upon
measurables, but one subject to redefinition and
remeasurement. 'Avogadro's constant', written without
units, would imply an immutable concept of 'mole' similar to
'dozen', irrespective of committee whim, dimensionless and
thus conceptually like 'dozen', easy to teach, anticipating
stoichiometry, independent of empirical measurement, and
requiring only a nod to history and general agreement to
install forever. Would it *really* matter if it were
defined as 6.00000(..?)exp23 (we can let the committees
argue as to how many zeroes would be appropriate -
presumably as many as appropriate for current measurements)?
The 'mistake' is only as grevious as choosing H over
(C/12) as a mass standard. And what do we do in actual
fact? Spend years messing around deciding which element is
most 'natural' for our definition with units! I can see the
logic of both sides of the debate but, for me, doing away
with politics and politicians swings the argument. ;-)
Actually I'm reminded of undergraduate days, when someone
'cooking' was cooking the books wholesale, and someone
'baking' was using the "baker's mole" when weighing out
reagents so as to maximise apparent yields in practical
classes.
Apologies for lumping sundry comments into one post. Of the
two NG servers I have, one has many posts missing and the
other shows threads ambiguously, so I'm not sure which
thread I'm jumping into.
In article <39A45CB2...@enteract.com>, Fred Kasner
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
loosel...@my-deja.com
We, the Protozoan Limerick Organisation, object to this vile insult to
single celled lifeforms. Prepare to die bitch...
---
There was a young Queen of posts
Who couldn't keep straight her hosts
She munched on the bung
And coughed up a lung
From mixing jars'n'cans with toast
The Queen of Cans and Jars
> que...@bungmunch.org (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
> > Mark Tarka <mark...@mcn.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mark (As simple as one gets... :-)
> >
> > too true. if one were to be any more simple than Miss Tarka, one
> > would have to be positively protozoan in nature.
>
> We, the Protozoan Limerick Organisation, object to this vile insult to
> single celled lifeforms. Prepare to die bitch...
while i certainly can't blame you for not wanting to be associated with
miss bleeding gums tarka, i would appreciate it if you didn't call me a
bitch unless there's a damn good reason for it.
loosel...@my-deja.com
que...@bungmunch.org (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
> <loosel...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > que...@bungmunch.org (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:
> > > Mark Tarka <mark...@mcn.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mark (As simple as one gets... :-)
> > >
> > > too true. if one were to be any more simple than Miss Tarka, one
> > > would have to be positively protozoan in nature.
> >
> > We, the Protozoan Limerick Organisation, object to this vile insult
to
> > single celled lifeforms. Prepare to die bitch...
>
> while i certainly can't blame you for not wanting to be associated
with
> miss bleeding gums tarka, i would appreciate it if you didn't call me
a
> bitch unless there's a damn good reason for it.
ok. bye.
The Queen of Cans and Jars
Bufford
Queenie, meet Oli. Oli is the only alt.angster ever known to possess
an Inner Meow. Juliane may be good for an occasional Smiths cascade,
but overall she's become a flatulent pain in the arse.
Oli, meet Queenie. If you ask her politely, she might use her welding
torch to fix you one of her famous QoCaJ pies. Had you spelled that
word as "beeyotch" I bet she would have laughed uproariously.
I think you two should get along just fine.
Just tryin' to help,
Bufford
The Queen of Cans and Jars
Ian Stirling
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:39:45 +0200, "Pia Danilo"
><dani...@tiscalinet.it> wrote:
>>Excuse me I'm a Student and I hope you don't misunderstand me (caus I'm
>>Italian I have a not good english). My professor teach me that :"if youy
>>need and have enough money you could buy an avogadro'Number of sof?"
>>maybe this is the best definition for the user. I found this very clear.
>>what you think about this?
>That might be true in principle. But think about how much space it
>would take. Even if you bought things that had volume of only 1 mL (1
>cm^3), Avogadro's Number (a mole) of them would fill up the Pacific
>Ocean.
What about 100 tonnes of 100nm TiO2 powder?
--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inqui...@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
If God hadn't intended us to eat animals,
He wouldn't have made them out of MEAT! - John Cleese
alag...@gmail.com
> 6.022 x 10^23 mol^-1 and the last is no typoo.
>
> 6.022 x 10^23 molecules(or atoms, ions...) PER mole of substance.
>
> molecules/mole => 1/mole => mol^-1
>
>
> Sincerely, Ilya S. Kuprov
Both are accepted. Its like adding or removing 5$ from Bill gates money.