Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Avogadro's number vs. the Kofh Number
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 55 (103879)
04-29-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Melchior
04-29-2004 5:26 PM


Re: hydrogen at one mass unit
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Melchior, posted 04-29-2004 5:26 PM Melchior has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 32 of 55 (103904)
04-29-2004 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Darwin Storm
04-29-2004 2:54 AM


avo's number and high school ed
Well, my assertion is that the number called Avogadro's Number is actually the number one, being the mole concept.
Experiments to determine just how many atomic or molecular particles really are in one mole of a substance has produced many choices.
The best science people, from Planck, Einstein, Millikan went to great experimental lengths to find that number. It was accepted at 6.0220 and appears that way in high school texts.
X- ray analysis is now the accepted final word on the subject, coming in at 6.0221, still wrong to a small degree.
High School text books totally misrepresent the methodology for obtaining the number. Books presently used in the secondary schools (such as Holt's Modern Chemistry, and others) simple divide an unexplained 1.660x 10^-24 into one, meaning one mole, thereby showing the readers that Avodadro's Number is 6.022 x 10 ^23.
1 mole/1.6605655 x 10^-24 = 6.022045
That's the present text book math.
Now, it wasn't that I have an axe to grind, but I did say that the numbers branished around vary widely, when it is plain that one gram atomic weight of Protium (a single atom without isotopes) divided by the gram weight of a proton/electron is exactly the number of particules in any mole. That number is 6.0222.
I also said that, if we are picking covenient numbers, since the isotopes confuse the issue, I prefer Planck's number 6.180. This simply because it is the reciprocal to the Golden Proportion. That means, these text books can show that the golden mean, 1.6180, to the -24 power of ten equals avogadro's Number, and this harmonizes so well with the mysterious and beautiful appearance of that ratio in living things.
None of this is as important as my point about the tolerance of people in permitting free and wrong expression on these boards, because it is edifying even for those who are wrong.
I also noted that off this subject of public education, and as pertains to the controversy between what people think that they know and what people say they believe in regard to evolution and creationism, polite discussion and no pulling down of people's pants to embarrass them ought be encouraged.
Bottom line, I say the right number in the Physical Chemistry sense is 6.0222, not these other numbers, and that my method to support this is simply theoretical, experimentless readily available evidence. The other numbers were produced by experiments rather complex, but they all confirm the simple mathematics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Darwin Storm, posted 04-29-2004 2:54 AM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Melchior, posted 04-29-2004 7:13 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 35 by Wounded King, posted 04-30-2004 5:14 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 33 of 55 (103906)
04-29-2004 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Wounded King
04-29-2004 2:35 PM


Re: Can we clear up what is being discussed?
read message 25, that about sums it all.
kofie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2004 2:35 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 55 (103909)
04-29-2004 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by kofh2u
04-29-2004 7:01 PM


Re: avo's number and high school ed
Well, how convinient of a number you wish to use is of course based on what kind of accuracy you want. The text book I used more or less just settled for saying "It's experimental" and put a nice 4 decimal digits on it. Easy enough for students to use.
I don't really see what the deal is, though. It's a number experimentally derived in relation to other defined units... Obviously, the more accurate the experiments and calculations, the better.
I do hope that the common text-books at least mention the sort of experiments required and just don't show convertion rate formulas, which, as you say, has no actual use in determining the number.
[This message has been edited by Melchior, 04-29-2004]

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 51 by kofh2u, posted 05-02-2004 11:36 PM Melchior 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

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 36 of 55 (104439)
04-30-2004 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Wounded King
04-30-2004 5:14 AM


kofh's Number = 5.9755 x10^23
Ok,
we all got our feet wet.
Now, here is the only sensible number:
5.9755 x10^23nparticles in one mole of a gram mass weight of any element calculated relativevto hydrogen one, Protium. In this base system, Hydrogen has an amu = 1.
C12 will = 12.005amu relative to Hydrogen.
The reason for this switch in relative bases is that in thevC12 base the gram atomic mass of one atom of Carbon computes erroneously to:
One atom of C12 does NOT = 19.926 x10^-24 grams
Yet, if Avogadro's number is 6.0222 x10^23, then conversely,
1.6605 x20^-24g(12) = 19.926 x10^-24 grams
which is wrong, the correct weight of one atom of C12 being:
Calculation of weight of one Carbon atom:
C12 = 6 (P+) + 6 (e-) + 6 (No)=
= 6(1.67350 + 1.6749)x 10^-24g
= 20.09 x 10^-24 grams
Do we all agree so far in this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Wounded King, posted 04-30-2004 5:14 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Melchior, posted 04-30-2004 10:11 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 04-30-2004 11:08 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 55 (104442)
04-30-2004 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by kofh2u
04-30-2004 10:00 PM


Re: kofh's Number = 5.9755 x10^23
kofh2u writes:
One atom of C12 does NOT = 19.926 x10^-24 grams
Yet, if Avogadro's number is 6.0222 x10^23, then conversely,
1.6605 x20^-24g(12) = 19.926 x10^-24 grams
which is wrong, the correct weight of one atom of C12 being:
Calculation of weight of one Carbon atom:
C12 = 6 (P+) + 6 (e-) + 6 (No)=
= 6(1.67350 + 1.6749)x 10^-24g
= 20.09 x 10^-24 grams
Do we all agree so far in this?
No, we can not agree on that. It's incorrect. You can't just add all the weights of the particles to get the weight of an atom composed of them.
Bonding energy does wonder for messing up weight. Atomic bombs takes advantage of this. And they work, as we've seen before.
Check any periodic table, and you'll see that the simple 'add everything together' rule don't work out with the numbers listed.
ADD: The phenomena that you might wish to check up is usually called 'mass defect' or 'mass deficiency' and would probably be best explained by a low-mid level physics course/textbook or a direct web-search (plenty of .edu sites out there).
[This message has been edited by Melchior, 04-30-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kofh2u, posted 04-30-2004 10:00 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 1:47 AM Melchior has not replied

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


Message 38 of 55 (104453)
04-30-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by kofh2u
04-30-2004 10:00 PM


Re: kofh's Number = 5.9755 x10^23
Do we all agree so far in this?
Absolutely not. Like Melchior said - go find a freshman chemistry book and read about binding energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by kofh2u, posted 04-30-2004 10:00 PM kofh2u has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by SRO2, posted 04-30-2004 11:14 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 55 (104456)
04-30-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coragyps
04-30-2004 11:08 PM


Re: kofh's Number = 5.9755 x10^23
We should ahve put him in charge of fusion reaction, then we wouldn't have the whole H-bomb thing hangin' over us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coragyps, posted 04-30-2004 11:08 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 12:49 PM SRO2 has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 40 of 55 (104477)
05-01-2004 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Melchior
04-30-2004 10:11 PM


Re: kofh's Number = 5.9755 x10^23
Hahaha..
exactly right.
Well, we really do have some science people here!
Congratulations ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Melchior, posted 04-30-2004 10:11 PM Melchior has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 2:49 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 41 of 55 (104487)
05-01-2004 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by kofh2u
05-01-2004 1:47 AM


look at the responses to the correct number, that 6.0222
Well, what I see is these responses posted below as regarding the real head count using Protium.
(There was no applause nor confirmation when I correctly suggested that the very, very exacting measurement of the mass spectro gave us the rather undeniable exact weight of Protium. This divided into one gram-mole of H1 MUST be a head count.)
Then, look by contrst to the one person who posts and proves some physical science understanding when the number 5.99... whatever was argued.
What I see is, that it is hard to get a positive reply when dead right, and, as I have been saying, with the exception of polite percy, an the patience tone of correction by mel, easy to bring out a superiority not demonstrated in posting about 6.0222.
Why? Why is that.
And corag said, he didn'teven care about the 3rd decimal... but that was what we were discussing... exact head counts.
Is 6.0222 a better head count than 6.0221? x 10^23... that's a lot moe heads.
whether the name is stated first, as 6.220, which started this thread off... a typo error...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 1:47 AM kofh2u has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Wounded King, posted 05-01-2004 10:11 AM kofh2u 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

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 43 of 55 (104550)
05-01-2004 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by SRO2
04-30-2004 11:14 PM


Now,...your turn.
Now, its your turn. All the bases have been covered, but the right argument for t
e real head count still has not been stated.
What is the right head count, rocket, because none of these number is as close as the best real number:
none of these are correct:
6.220
6.0220
6.0221
6.0222
5.99
6.06
6.180
Where do you place YOUR bet? Regardless of the priesthood at tge international society, what is the best actaul head count for it isn't in this list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by SRO2, posted 04-30-2004 11:14 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by SRO2, posted 05-01-2004 2:54 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 45 by Coragyps, posted 05-01-2004 3:29 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 55 (104571)
05-01-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by kofh2u
05-01-2004 12:49 PM


Re: Now,...your turn.
Which number for what application? Thats what we've been trying to tell you, there is no generic number to plug into a specific application. You mis-took the generosity of your science book to mean that there was a "magic" number that God used in creation...well there just isn't one, every element is different. It also doesn't account for elements of the atom at the sub-atomic level such as gluons and quarks, which makes 4 decimal places huge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 12:49 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 8:55 PM SRO2 has replied

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


Message 45 of 55 (104582)
05-01-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by kofh2u
05-01-2004 12:49 PM


Re: Now,...your turn.
Where do you place YOUR bet? Regardless of the priesthood at tge international society, what is the best actaul head count for it isn't in this list.
WTF are you babbling about now? Why don't you just decide what you really want it to be, and declare it to be so within the metes and bounds of Kofhland? I won't stand in your way.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 12:49 PM kofh2u 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