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.
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...
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 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.
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]
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.