Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8950 total)
35 online now:
Diomedes, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,340 Year: 22,376/19,786 Month: 939/1,834 Week: 9/430 Day: 9/63 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Avogadro's number vs. the Kofh Number
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2164 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 46 of 55 (104633)
05-01-2004 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by SRO2
05-01-2004 2:54 PM


Re: Now,...your turn rocketmanallen.
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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by SRO2, posted 05-01-2004 2:54 PM SRO2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by SRO2, posted 05-02-2004 12:18 AM kofh2u has responded

  
SRO2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 47 of 55 (104683)
05-02-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by kofh2u
05-01-2004 8:55 PM


Re: Now,...your turn rocketmanallen.
The number for that particular atom of that particular element...you're a little on the slow side aren't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by kofh2u, posted 05-01-2004 8:55 PM kofh2u has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Melchior, posted 05-02-2004 2:23 PM SRO2 has responded
 Message 50 by kofh2u, posted 05-02-2004 9:47 PM SRO2 has not yet responded

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 55 (104724)
05-02-2004 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by SRO2
05-02-2004 12:18 AM


Re: Now,...your turn rocketmanallen.
Well, by definition, all elements contains the exact same number per mole.

What it is exactly that the mole counts differs, yes. For example, a mole of water is based only upon the number of molecules. A mole of hydrogen atoms is based only upon the number of atoms. But the number Na is not dependant on what element you count in any way.

The number of gluons is completely irrelevant if you are counting atoms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by SRO2, posted 05-02-2004 12:18 AM SRO2 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by SRO2, posted 05-02-2004 9:21 PM Melchior has not yet responded

  
SRO2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 49 of 55 (104784)
05-02-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Melchior
05-02-2004 2:23 PM


Re: Now,...your turn rocketmanallen.
OOOPS, I was thinking weight for some reason there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Melchior, posted 05-02-2004 2:23 PM Melchior has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2164 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 50 of 55 (104796)
05-02-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by SRO2
05-02-2004 12:18 AM


Re: Now,...your turn rocketmanallen.
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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by SRO2, posted 05-02-2004 12:18 AM SRO2 has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2164 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 51 of 55 (104826)
05-02-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Melchior
04-29-2004 7:13 PM


Re: avo's number and high school ed
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Melchior, posted 04-29-2004 7:13 PM Melchior has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 05-03-2004 5:15 AM kofh2u has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2439 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by kofh2u, posted 05-04-2004 5:30 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3377 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 53 of 55 (104936)
05-03-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by kofh2u
04-29-2004 12:54 PM


Re: pearl before swine
and indeed,
for it would bear on my attempted constructive critcism of a Gladyshev inequality. It may be that one can take a cel out of his series without consequence but if the sequences prohibit it then indeed what would appear be a "shell game" where I attempt to bring the heirarchy (to biology) down to a level of organization lower would not in fact be (a shell game) even if the formal equilibrium remained constant (as it should)but instead an advance in a seperation phenomenologically of gramme and lexos if not some other rather clearer shifting. I would not accept taking out Mr.Hambre's 'darwinian' organ however.

[This message has been edited Brad McFall, 05-03-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 12:54 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 2164 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 54 of 55 (105299)
05-04-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Wounded King
05-03-2004 5:15 AM


Re: avo's number and high school ed
thanxz for the site ref

Yes, of course my nep and I had funa nd reflected on matters in just the way that research people like.

But, on these boards, when you have people acting so smug and looking to impress others, ready to criticize and demean...
.. well, you got present to a different audience.

I loved rocketman's "oooops" when he demonstrated that he had little idea what I was talking about but ready disparagement right from the the first post.

Then, coegyp was acting in agreement with this rocketscienceguy, and referring to all the brains on line, how people ought know that they can't post erroreous stuff and all,...

... so, I post directly to him, full of errors, and he never caught why 6.0222 is really mathematically correct.

I think the math scared him off his pedestal.

Only you realize that the best mathematically derived number is 6.0223.

And, only you realize that that number is experimentally derived solely from mass spectro reading of the weight of Protium. The mass spectro is the tool measuring all atomic masses on the Preiodic chart and is the most simple and one step experiment to calculate Avogadro's Number.

Thanxz again, watch out on these boards, some ppeople are only here because their wife yelled at them.

PS. This exercise was a demonstration of secular faith in the "accepted" ideas of the scientific priesthood reigning today. They are not unlike the Fundies, in that they indoctrinated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 05-03-2004 5:15 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by SRO2, posted 05-04-2004 6:05 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
SRO2 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 55 of 55 (105314)
05-04-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by kofh2u
05-04-2004 5:30 PM


Re: avo's number and high school ed
As usual, you are absolutely 100% right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by kofh2u, posted 05-04-2004 5:30 PM kofh2u has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019