|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Avogadro's number vs. the Kofh Number | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
1) Good morning.
2) What you say, about the human nature, and its gradual erosion of an openness is true, but not my point. What I am saying, among some of the other induendo that you picked up on, pertains to the priesthood that is building. It is caricutured in the asprin ads where men in white coats speak well of Buffer. What I am saying here, is that all present are, and will remain, "uncertified," except by the wisdom of what they post. We have no idea who we, each of us, really is, do we? Is rocketscience guy, really a science guy? Or, does he merely run the elevator at NASA. Who knows. But he voices a "we are judging this guy in our assumed expertise." I have never read anything from this guy, for instance, that assures me he knows anything about calculating Avogadro's Number, for instance.I ask myself, am I talking to a con man, placing the onus of explaining things upon myself while this sycophant pretends by a simple nodding of agreement with others or simple disparagement of my statements. See what I mean. Pearl before swine. In this, I say, just stop that crap, will you, all, if you are doing it? If the shoe fits. 3) Sources in support or to the contrary, Good.Great. If you (impersonal, not to you directly) are prepared and educated and experienced and trained, then read the posting here without the cast of authority and great superiority, whether you have such credentials or no, because no one here can be sure. I say, respond in kind, kindly, too, to the ideas presented, whether in the discipline of religion or science, for that matter, for I hate bashing. Lets hear your thoughts. I resent the implied messages, that my edification, for instance, I could be enriched by reading some site you or another someone might think good for my advancement to that lofty superior station of people who have already read it. Just explain what you are trying to say. Respond in kind. Let the valuable site info be passed on your own point, not your html. Because that is what I am going to do. Tell you the number in my own words, and calculate them by my own stated figures. 4) I could care less about "Nature." But, I do point out to you, that THEY are the final judge in such matters as this, not the "staff" here, about to read my opinion about what this number is. So what I mean? You MUST care about "Nature." You must recognize that what you people say may seem democractic here, but not definitive of whether I am right or wrong. 5) With this said, I can present two numbers for you to think about. Neither of these numbers cares a wit, nor do I, whether they demonstrate that my idea has merit, that I am a wit, or that the whole farce has been witless. In short, if you don't find it amusing, that an unseen nobody, from "outer space even," posts a point that he says make fools of the very most capable and prominent of scientist, then you have no sense of humor, and no place reading the post to come, for "Surely, I jest," but am quite serious, also, about the truth of my numbers. 6) Sorry for the rant. But I noticed that you were able to originate a new thread. Here it is.We are about to begin, are we not. Yet, I apparently have been restricted some how, or I am not among the chosen, able to originate such a thread as this on my own. In this, I see that I have been trying out, to this point, to get some approval such as your own in order to proceed. This special opportunity to this present, which is mine... or, is it really yours, in that it IS your thread, is it not? How, may I ask, you did you so self assuredly start a new thread just as you told me you would? Just for my own edification, will you clue me in before I clue you in? 7) There are two numbers to consider as wise. A) One, in the realm of Physical Chemistry, is the real number of particules to be found in all and any mole weight of a substance. B) There other is an elegant, beautiful number much more useful and practical in the laboratory work of Chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Do you consider 6.0221 x 10^23 an arbitrary number?
Is the present accepted number right in your opinion, or wrong? What is it that you are saying, before we begin? The question is: How mant actual particules are to be counted in a one mole sample? Do you know? How is that count arbitrary at present?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Do you have any proof of these denigrating and disparaging remarks?
Can you understand that I would not b=not care to continue an intelligent discussion with you because your commentary along the way becomes personal and is reduced to uncalled for attack similar to this stuff you poison the conversation with here.' IF you are a science person, why not shut up until you have read my science, then comment. By your own words, I with drew my offer to present on another subject before you had the opportunity to consider the idea. This smacks of truth in what I say, that you bait people with ridicuke and induendo BEFORE they have told you what their science contends. Perhaps you are no scientist but merely an abomination on these boards eager to amuse yourself at our expense. If not, will you stop posting until the science is presented? THEN, I would very much like to hear what YOU have to say. Assumedly, as one scientist to another, could be do this experiment... You shut up, I post. Then, I shut up and you can comment on the science all you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
By arbitrary, do mean a wild guess.
Do you mean that the present number, 6.0221 x 10^23 is not a factual head count of the molecular or atomic particules in a sample of a substance? What do you mean? I mean, I am going to tell you the exact number of particules in such as sample as you defined. I mean, those other numbers purport to so do, are accepted as closest we can get or very close indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Yes, you are on the right track.
YOU SAY: "For example, the ratio of hydrogen (Protium), 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)." Because we average the % composition of isotopes found in naturally occurring hydrogen. SO THEN, using that idea, if we separate out one mole of pure hydrogen 1, eleminate the heavy isotopes, that mole contains the exact number we are looking for: AND, WE KNOW THE GRAM WEIGHT FOR EACH ATOM IN THAT SAMPLE!(one mole protium) 1/1.6735 x 10^-24 grams (weight of a proton and electron) = 1/1.6735 x 10 ^-24 = 5.9752 Avogadro's Number would seem to be correct at 5.9752 x 10^23 If were we to refine such a sample of light hydrogen, Protium, and using the original thinking of Avogadro, that one mole equaled one gram weight, then this paricular gram atomic weight ought have exactly the same number as all other gram weights... What I am saying is that a pure sample of one gram Protium would actually have the same number of particules in it as the full, but heavier sample of the isotopic combination. But the heavier sample would have required we weigh out more. The weighing would be based upon % averages. Now, since the Protium is essentially a proton with an electron in orbit, and the mass spectro weighs that unit in grams, 1.6735 x 10^-24 grams, at first take, it would seem that, not only this one mole sample contains the indicated number of Avogadro particles, 5.9752, but in accord with his hypothesis, all one mole samples of anything must contain this quantity, even in spite of the fact that the samples contain conbinations of heavier and lighter isotopes. The fact of the higher weights means that more of the substance is measured out to obtain one mole. Large variations in weight, however, would tend to lower the number of particules or raise them, proportionately. So, in less than a pure substance, the true number would not be a constant. This number seems far different from most of the other numbers recommended. Planck = 6.18Perrin = 7.0 Einstein = 6.56 Millikan = 6.06 X-ray of Si = 6.0221 However, if we double chech our figures here, we actually find two things facing us. The mass spectro also weighs out the protium today and the original concept of the mass of protium is not a unit of one atomic weight, but 1.00785. Using that weight above we get a number that is the exact number of particules in any mole, so, 1.00785/1.67356 = 6.0222. True, as stated in a post below, differing in the fourth place. (but 10^23 is still a lot of difference in actual head count) This is the best number in the sense of being correct. And, close enough to the round about x-ray analysis, more directly weighed out and simply computed. In a sense, the x-ray confirms that this number is really correct, the experimental error more probable than the mathematical and mass spectro calcultions. However, if we take a sample consisting of an averaged weight of any substance, one that has isotopes greatly differing in weights and we conpare that sample to another which has isotopes very close to the same weights, we can see that the former sample will contain fewer particules than the latter. With this in mind, the spectrum of variations number per mole, in this deviation over the whole of the Periodic Chart of the elements, suggests that the actual number, only slightly different from the presently accepted number of 6.02213 x 10^23, can never be truly applied in the practical situation, and is therefore a generalized approximation of the particle count. witgh this in mind, the best number seems to me to be neither the true number I computed at 6.0223 nor the accepted number at 6.0221. I would suggest that the beauty of Planck's number be used, the fact being that it was used to fix the other constants, k and hence R;k = R/Na. In this we see the Golden Ratio of .610 x 10^ 24 appear in our equation! How magnificent. In this regard, then, one mole/1.618 x 10^-24 = 6.18 x 10^23. Whether the beauty of Planck's wrong number is better in the real world or Avogadro's true number ought be used would require a lot of comparisions pertaining the deviations mentioned. But, for now, I'd like to think that Eintein was wrong, God does play the dice of probability and one of the numbers on the dice is 6.18 x 10^23.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
read message 25, that about sums it all.
kofie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Hahaha..
exactly right. Well, we really do have some science people here! Congratulations ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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: 6.2206.0220 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
rocket,
Are you saying that there is no Avogadro Number? Or, that you don't understand the question, "What's the closest number representing the head count of atoms or molecules in 1 mole of any substance? [This message has been edited by kofh2u, 05-01-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
ok,
forget it. I know your not a chem guy, prop an elect engineer. Why you like to post these boards, tho' amazes me.You never read the bible, and you never add anyhting but dcuddlebutt responses to other people. It must be tge unfulfilled hope for make comradrerie. Anyway, you guys all finally jumped on the misstatement I have made, never one person calling my bluff on 6.0222...I am sure none of you read the math... so you are all pretending to be scientific when you'all are technocratic engineers and teachers or something...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3850 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Well, my nephew started me thinking about where the number in his book came from. He found it difficult to believe that we could know for sure.
The book presented a mathematical division of 1.6605 x 10^-24 gram into one mole weight of C12.Of course, the definition of a mole cancels the C12 mass out to one one mole, one then divided by thus unexplained Magic No 1.6605. By the time I explained the whole thing, we went through the same discussion we have had here. The nephew, who is considering research sci learned alot about all tge stuff we have covered here. So, that was my point. While the rest of his class moved way on in basically accepting a more or less indoctrination, he had to understand where 1.660 came from, how we know the at mass #, mass spectros, and so much. Without getting the whole thing explained, the number just had to be accepted, exactly tge way religious indoctrinations work. Accept, accept, accept,...think and maybe understand later.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024