Avogadro's number vs. the Kofh Number

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 thread seems to carry over from a seperate thread. However, since this is a seperat thread, can we please hear a clarification of Kofh2u statement, or the point of this thread. It seems to be discussing the basis of measurment systems and equivelence between different systems, but I am not positive.

There is a flaw to your logic, one that is partially addressed by using c-14 as the standard for the modern value. Protons and Nuetrons do not have identical masses. This is a small deviaton between the two values. If you simply use the mass of a hydrogen atom, then you wind up skewing the values because heavier elements are composed of protons and nuetrons.
Also, avogadro's number is experimentally based off a pure sample of c-14 to obtain the value for an amu. Avogadros number will always experimentally work if you take c-14 as the basis for the value. The values reported on the charts for various elements reflect experimental values based on earth samples with ratios of isotopes based on average earth ratios. If you were to do the same periodic chart on mars, based on c-14, the amu would still have the same value, but the average isotope ratios would lead to average values for elements that would be slightly different than earth.
Just for reference, the mass of a proton is 1.672623e-27 kg while the mass of a neutron is 1.6749286e-27

Err, my bad, C-12 is the common isotope used. C-14 is used for carbon dating. : ) we all make typos, but this one needed to be addressed. thanks.