Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Avogadro's number vs. the Kofh Number
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 1 of 55 (103319)
04-28-2004 6:05 AM


In the 'Negative impacts on society' thread Kofh2u called into question the current value used for Avogadro's number. In this post he briefly recapped a number of previoulsy suggested values and suggested that a better basis for such values would be using Protons to calculate values for the AMU and Avogadro's number.
Is this simply a question of switching one arbitrary value for another for no good reason? Would Kofh2u's idea have any benefits? One of Kofh2u's objections was that Avogadro's number doesn't take account of different proportions of isotopic molecules in a substance but I don't see how his scheme would obviate that.
Any thoughts or feelings on 'The Kofh Number'? Does this idea have any scientific merit or is it like Syamsu's reduced form of natural selection, just the same old thing but refitted to someones ideological mindset?
TTFN,
WK
{Note from Adminnemooseus - I have modified the topic title from "The Kofh Number" to "Avogadro's number vs. the Kofh Number"}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-28-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by SRO2, posted 04-28-2004 4:08 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2004 4:21 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 04-28-2004 4:29 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 4:35 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 12 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 2:46 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 55 (103411)
04-28-2004 3:24 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 55 (103422)
04-28-2004 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
04-28-2004 6:05 AM


Good on ya' Wounded King!
I was waiting for this to go topic. You caught on quicker than we did on another forum. It took us a week to figure out it was just a shell game (not this particular subject, but the same mechanics).
The material is offered up in the guise of "fact", but more detailed exploration reveals a simple "slight of hand" manipulation of speculation. When the given "facts" are challenged, he switches to a whole new line of speculation in the guise of "facts". It's a vicious cycle nearly impossible to arrest.
Kudos to you!
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2004 6:05 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 12:54 PM SRO2 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 55 (103427)
04-28-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
04-28-2004 6:05 AM


An arbitrary number is just that.
We have Fahrenheit and Celsius as examples of two different arbitrary units that measure the same thing, and one could argue that Celsius is 'more elegant' than Fahrenheit, but it doesn't make it any cooler in the summer or hotter in the winter or change the cooking time of the thanksgiving turkey.
We also have degrees, radians and grads for measuring angles, all arbitrary as well.
Changing from one arbitrary unit to another does not change the reality.
When the number is based on how much {standard what} fits into a set {standard volume} then changing the number to something pretty affects the defining volume with calculation ramifications of disproportionate magnitude.
The only valid reason to change a number is when the value is calibrated to a higher degree of accuracy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2004 6:05 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 12:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 55 (103433)
04-28-2004 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
04-28-2004 6:05 AM


Yes, we're switching arbitrary values. Prior to 1961, physicists defined unit atomic weight as 1/16th of the mass of an oxygen-16 atom. Chemists defined it as 1/16th of the abundance-weighted average of the three oxygen isotopes present in the Earth's atmosphere. Since then it has been, by definition, 1/12 of the mass of a carbon-12 atom. (Before 1925, it was something different, but my chemistry books aren't that old.
Avagadro's number is just the number of atoms or molecules in the mass in grams of a substance that is numerically equal to the molecular weight, so it's really quite arbitrary.
And by the way, Avagadro's number of avocados does, in fact, have the same mass as Earth's Moon for avocados of the unusually large mass of 122 grams each. (or 61 grams each if avocados are naturally diatomic....)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2004 6:05 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 12:59 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 55 (103436)
04-28-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
04-28-2004 6:05 AM


quote:
One of Kofh2u's objections was that Avogadro's number doesn't take account of different proportions of isotopic molecules in a substance but I don't see how his scheme would obviate that.
The atomic weight listed on periodic tables reflects the ratio of isotopes for a certain element as they are found in nature. For example, the ratio of hydrogen, deuterium, and tritium found in one mole of water is reflected in the slightly higher atomic weight of Hydrogen (normal H = 1.0000 while in the periodic table H = 1.0079). Avogadro's number doesn't directly take into account differing weights, but the weights in the periodic table do. Just as a counterexample, if I concentrated pure tritium from a normal pool of hydrogen, I would use the atomic weight for tritium (3.0 I think) instead of 1.0 for hydrogen for calculating mass in one mole of tritium. The adjustment is in the atomic weight used, not Avo's number.
So, I guess the answer is this. As long as you are using natural ratios of isotopes, the masses listed in the periodic table are sufficient, and one molar mass of any substance will still contain 6.022 x 1023 molecules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2004 6:05 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by SRO2, posted 04-28-2004 6:09 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 25 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 3:54 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 55 (103473)
04-28-2004 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Loudmouth
04-28-2004 4:35 PM


Molecular fudge factors.
Stoichiometrically speaking of coarse, since the spin of an atom can be calculated nowadays, there is no excuse not to hold molecular weight out to 4 or 5 decimal places.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 4:35 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 6:38 PM SRO2 has replied
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-28-2004 6:51 PM SRO2 has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 55 (103491)
04-28-2004 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by SRO2
04-28-2004 6:09 PM


Re: Molecular fudge factors.
quote:
Stoichiometrically speaking of coarse, since the spin of an atom can be calculated nowadays, there is no excuse not to hold molecular weight out to 4 or 5 decimal places.
Depends on the precision needed. In my everyday work, 50 mM or 50.00323 mM is really the same thing when making biological buffers. Even when using isotope tagged biomolecules, we still use the common molecular weight (given a MW of > 50). It is called a fudge factor for a reason, it can be ignored if it doesn't fudge everything up. I'm not trying to downplay current knowledge, it is pretty cool that we can measure atomic mass with such precision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SRO2, posted 04-28-2004 6:09 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by SRO2, posted 04-28-2004 6:45 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 55 (103495)
04-28-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Loudmouth
04-28-2004 6:38 PM


Re: Molecular fudge factors.
Agreed, but for the sake of the argument here (which is delta of Avogadro's number verses true molecular weight)...decimal places are significant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 04-28-2004 6:38 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 10 of 55 (103499)
04-28-2004 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by SRO2
04-28-2004 6:09 PM


Re: Molecular fudge factors.
Depends on the element, and the source of the sample. The ratios of the various isotopes can vary enough for some elements to throw you off before the 4th decimal. Particularly if you're talking about Earth water vs. comet water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by SRO2, posted 04-28-2004 6:09 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by SRO2, posted 04-28-2004 6:53 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2004 4:52 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 55 (103502)
04-28-2004 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
04-28-2004 6:51 PM


Re: Molecular fudge factors.
Ooooh! Got me! Good catch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-28-2004 6:51 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 12 of 55 (103657)
04-29-2004 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wounded King
04-28-2004 6:05 AM


Wow! You did a good job.
I haven't read these 14 post beyond yours, here, introducing my and giving a synopsis of the matter at hand.
You did a great job apparently.
I hope tomorrow, (for I am on the way to bed for the night), ...I hope the audience you have prepared for this great exposition has not already lambasted me.
As you know, I expect that this community of science people will remember their own former complaint against the repression of originality during those terrible days of the Inquisition. Many still have refused to parton the church to this very moment, merely for the same "crime" against science as they may perbutrate here themslves.
In the academic community, we once evidenced a gentlemanly encouragement in the swapping of some of the most absured and erroneous ideas (phylogestion Theory) without fear of ridicule or the sophistry and pretense of a superiority,... evidence by no more proof than an easy negativity and arrogant criticism in the conceits of no ideas themselves. True?
In this paper, which I have prepared for consideration by "Nature" magazine, I will present an informal overview of the basic idea.
That it is short and concise belies the importance and emphasizes the wisfom, which ought always be signaled by brevity.
You ask whether it is important, ignoring that in the gas laws, the constant k = R/Na has never been satisfactorily derived
And, remember who my real advesaries are, all experimentors, by Planck, Einstein, Perrin, and enough other super-scientists to make me both an underdog to argue there numbers, and a dark horse for your entertaiment.
But you, in introducing me as efectively as to gather 14 posts before I present, are to me what Stanislso Cannizzaro was for a deceased Avogadro, namely an advocate for the intelligent analysis of this short paper on this important and two century old puzzle.
This maybe my last theorem, and this marginal note to you might serve as a challange to another genius should my prayer: "Now I lay me down to sleep,... if I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord what I said is no mistake, Na = 5.9 x 10^23...."
Good nite, good fellows. ( I hope good, you fellow science people, for I haven't read your other 13 posts yet...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wounded King, posted 04-28-2004 6:05 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Darwin Storm, posted 04-29-2004 2:54 AM kofh2u has replied
 Message 15 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2004 6:02 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 55 (103661)
04-29-2004 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by kofh2u
04-29-2004 2:46 AM


Re: Wow! You did a good job.
If possible, Kofh2u, can you please state your assertion here. I know someone posted a short synopis in the initial post of the thread, but it was a bit fuzzy on details. If you have a chance, just outline what you saw as the problem with Avogadro's number, and what was your alternate idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 2:46 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 7:01 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 14 of 55 (103672)
04-29-2004 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Coragyps
04-28-2004 6:51 PM


Re: Molecular fudge factors.
You may be surprised to learn that there is very little call for comet water in molecular biology, sadly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 04-28-2004 6:51 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 15 of 55 (103674)
04-29-2004 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by kofh2u
04-29-2004 2:46 AM


Re: Wow! You did a good job.
Kofh2u writes:
In the academic community, we once evidenced a gentlemanly encouragement in the swapping of some of the most absured and erroneous ideas (phylogestion Theory) without fear of ridicule or the sophistry and pretense of a superiority,... evidence by no more proof than an easy negativity and arrogant criticism in the conceits of no ideas themselves. True?
I think that arguably this is true to some extent but it certainly isn't the whole story. There certainly have been periods where there was a more open and accepting attitude to wide varieties of theories but it is only to be expected that as the framework of science gets more defined there is going to be a greater exclusion of more fanciful theories as people focus more on the concrete.
It is also important to note that this is not the result of some degradation from an initial golden age of science. In the periods where modern science was really begginning to be established, such as Modern chemistry developing from Alchemy, there was still a great deal of infighting backbiting and a reluctance to disclose results and theories. I would reccommend Neal Stephenson's book 'Quicksilver' which illustrates some of the furore surrounding the differing systems of calculus produced by Newton and Leibniz.
To a large extent science is less 'open' today than it was a century ago because it is more open in other ways. There are so many more people investigating science and it has become so organised and in many ways commercialised that competition, either for publications grant money or commercial benefits, has brought back an air of secrecy and non-disclosure which had gone away for a time.
I certainly don't view modern science as being any more guilty of easy negativity and arrogant criticism than any other human institution. It may however be a great deal more sceptical than most human institutions.
I look forward, as did Darwin Storm, to a bit more detail on your ideas.
As to preparing a manuscript for publication in nature, well, to paraphrase the Bard 'Why, so can I, and so can any man, but will they publish it when you do submit to them?'.
TTFN,
WK
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 04-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 2:46 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 12:39 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024