Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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

  
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

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


Message 24 of 55 (103796)
04-29-2004 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Darwin Storm
04-29-2004 2:22 PM


Re: Can we clear up what is being discussed?
The entire point of this thread is to allow Kofh2u to clearly state his case and to elaborate on it. As yet he has only given vague hints ad innuendoes. Now he seems to want to clear up some attendant issues before proceeding.
I think the best thing ould be to either have Kofh2u give us the whole thing as soon as possble, providing it doesn't compromise his manuscript in preparation, or at least give us a concise precis of his reasoning which he can elaborate on as we dicuss it.
Cheers,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Darwin Storm, posted 04-29-2004 2:22 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 7:07 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 35 of 55 (104090)
04-30-2004 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by kofh2u
04-29-2004 7:01 PM


Re: avo's number and high school ed
I don't think all those other estimates of Na were based on 'great experimental lengths' at least 2 of the numbers were derived from Kinetic Theory in the most part. Perrin's number was an experimental measure based on these theories and subsequent technologies such as X-ray crystallography have allowed far greater precision.
If measurement with greater precision shows your calculated value of 6.0222X10^23 to be inexact then I fear people are much more likely to go for the experimentally rather than the theoretically derived value.
I'm not sure you can say that there are a widely varying selection of numbers 'brandished around'. There certainly have been a wide variety of estimates historically but these aren't all still in common usage, people accept the need for a common value and the most reliable experimentally derived value is the one they go for, obviously rounded to whatever extent is appropriate.
I would contend with your number being wholly theoretical, surely the values you are calculating with from mass spectometry are experimentally derived. Since this value has a margin of error you may have to subsequently revise your calculation as a better value for the weight of the proton is reached. Essentially it is a question of whether you consider the mass spec or the X-ray crystallography to be a more exact experimental method. You have not shown anyway to derive the number which doesn't require considerable previous experimental effort.
If Na really was in line then that would indeed be a marvellous harmonisation with so many things we observe in nature, since it isn't however I think you would be doing a disservice to science, education and the many actual instances of this ratio in nature by trying to shoehorn Na in to try and make things pleasant, as Emerson said 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines'. I wouldn't accuse you of having a little mind but you seem to be tending towards the philosophical bent.
I think your point about expression on these boards is most peculiar. People are most welcome to say the most contrary and wrongheaded things if they wish, but they can hardly expect not to have percieved deficits in their thinking brought to their attention.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 7:01 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by kofh2u, posted 04-30-2004 10:00 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 42 of 55 (104515)
05-01-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by kofh2u
05-01-2004 2:49 AM


Re: look at the responses to the correct number, that 6.0222
Why should you expect applause when, as I pointed out and you have not yet addressed the point, you are simply assuming that your 'head count' based on mass spec analysis is more accurate than the X-ray crystallography which is arguably an actual head count of the atoms in a specific volume. X-ray crystallography is also a very, very eaxting tool of measurement.
Cheers,
WK
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 2:49 AM kofh2u has not replied

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


Message 52 of 55 (104888)
05-03-2004 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by kofh2u
05-02-2004 11:36 PM


Re: avo's number and high school ed
This is an article which seems to have the same reservations about teaching concerning Avogadro's number as you have. The paper suggests a way to introduce students to the arbitrary nature of Avogadro's number as derived from C-12.
I hope the discussion you had with your nephew was a bit more coherent than this one.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by kofh2u, posted 05-02-2004 11:36 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by kofh2u, posted 05-04-2004 5:30 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