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.
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.
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?
It's a factual head count when you define an atomic mass unit as 1/12 of the mass of a carbon-12 atom and a gram as 1/1000 of the mass of that chunk of platinum-iridium alloy that's in Paris as the standard kilogram. If you go back to the pre-1961 definition of an amu, the number will change a little. I don't much care which it is - 15% hydrochloric acid still eats dolomite in these oil wells out here no matter what the third and fourth decimals in Avogadro's number are.
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.
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.
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 = 6.18 Perrin = 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.
Avogadro's number is defined by accepted convention to be the number of molecules in a mole of a substance. A mole is defined by accepted convention to be the weight in grams numerically the same as the molecular weight of the substance. These conventions became accepted because of the great conveniences they introduced. Because Avogadro's number and a mole are accepted conventions, you cannot argue that they are wrong, you can only suggest that they are insufficiently convenient and propose other conventions for consideration.
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