Derived Avogadros Equation for:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay then, Dr. Sheikh, how many 10:1 dilutions can you perform before you have removed all the good stuff and have nothing but solvent remaining?

~~ Paul

 

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos :

Dr. Sheikh, don't miss my question:

Fine. But then you remove 90% of the good stuff and add more solvent. Do you think you can do this forever without eventually removing all the good stuff?



~~ Paul

NO

Ooh ooh! I know the next question!

ETA: Awwwww! too late

 

[CurtC]

6.02 x 10^23 is a number, but a special one called Avagadro's number.
However, 6.02 x 10^23 mol^-1 referred to as Avagadro's constant.

I've always heard it as "Avogadro's number" instead of constant, and a Google search shows more than a 10:1 ratio in favor of "number."

The distinction is subtle, but you should use Avagadro's constant in equations in which all of the measurements or variables have units, if you want to have a meaningful result. (e.g. x (in grams) of substance, which has a molar weight of y (in grams/mol), will contain x/y*A molecules)

If there is a distinction, it would be in favor of AN being a number, but I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing. No matter what system of units you're working with, you'd use the 6.02x10^23 number. Of course, to get meaningful results, you have to be consistent in your units, but that's always the case.

e.g. "c" (approximately 3x10^9 m.s^-1) is a constant. Without the unit, "c" becomes a bit meaningless.

This is completely different, because the 3x10^9 number is only valid for the MKS system, when you're referring to meters as distance and seconds as time. With AN, it's always 6.02x10^23, even if you're working with miles, hours, and slugs.

But Wikipedia comes to the rescue. Note - Avagadro's number is not listed there...

Some of the ones I recognize on that list, such as Reynolds Number, have different (unitless) values depending on the conditions of a particular setup.

AN is exactly like a dozen. Is the number 12 when referring to a dozen a constant, or a number?

 

[Rolfe]

My vote is that it's a number. A constant is a constant multiplier, if I understand it correctly. Avogadro's number is just a number.

I think.

Rolfe.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's a constant if it has a unit, a number otherwise. The word dozen is a name for a number. These definitions are fairly informal, which is why people swap them around all the time.

If I ask you how many particles there are in 10 moles, you better calculate it like this:

[latex]$10 {\rm ~moles} \cdot \frac{6.02 \times 10^{23}}{\rm mole} = 6.02 \times 10^{24}$[/latex]

not like this:

[latex]$10 {\rm ~moles} \cdot 6.02 \times 10^{23} = 6.02 \times 10^{24} {\rm ~moles}$[/latex]

~~ Paul

 

[Metullus]

It's a constant if it has a unit, a number otherwise. The word dozen is a name for a number. These definitions are fairly informal, which is why people swap them around all the time.

If I ask you how many particles there are in 10 moles, you better calculate it like this:

[latex]$10 {\rm moles} \cdot \frac{6.02 \times 10^{23}}{\rm mole} = 6.02 \times 10^{24}$[/latex]

not like this:

The suspense is killing me...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry Metullus, I posted instead of previewing.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Okay then, Dr. Sheikh, how many 10:1 dilutions can you perform before you have removed all the good stuff and have nothing but solvent remaining?

~~ Paul

It depends upon the number of compounds or chemicals present in 1st starting material. I never seen somebody using damiana cm or sabal serrulata 1m because these have no results in 1m or 200.

I have been taught that few potencies do not work just because these have no traces of molecules or energies in them due to their chemical properties.

All potencies or all medicines do not work because of the implication of avogadros number. I am not against the equation of avogadros number equation which BSM derived. I am against the procedure which he adopted because the we do not prepare medicines as he described. I am against this opinion that at 12c you cannot trace molecules other than ethanol or water.

 

[Ririon]

Why don't we call it Avogadro's constant when it has a unit and Avogadro's number when it doesn't? Like in "a mole of anything has Avogadro's number of molecules" and "Avogadro's constant is the number of molecules per mole". I, for one, reserve my right to say both statements.

Next topic: [latex]$\pi$[/latex], number or mathematical constant?

 

[CurtC]

It's a constant if it has a unit, a number otherwise. The word dozen is a name for a number.

Is you is, or is you ain't agreeing with me that "dozen" and "mole" are completely equivalent? If a dozen is a number, then a mole is also a number, albeit a much larger number.

Your fancy-pants latex-formatted equation works exactly the same for moles and dozens:

[latex]$10 {\rm ~dozen} \cdot \frac{12}{\rm dozen} = 120$[/latex]

 

[Donks]

I am against this opinion that at 12c you cannot trace molecules other than ethanol or water.

You are free to provide some evidence to refute this "opinion."

 

[rwguinn]

You are free to provide some evidence to refute this "opinion."

one cannot help but wonder what his "opinion" is on the equality 2+2=4

 

[JamesM]

Is you is, or is you ain't agreeing with me that "dozen" and "mole" are completely equivalent? If a dozen is a number, then a mole is also a number, albeit a much larger number.

Previously, you said the Avogadro Number and a dozen were equivalent, not the mole and a dozen. I agree that a mole and a dozen are analogous. They are both units of an amount of substance, the former being the SI unit.

But I don't see how it follows that N_A is dimensionless. If we take the dozen as the unit of substance, we could posit CurtC's constant, N_CC, which the SI might define as the unit of the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are protons and neutrons in a nucleus of ¹²C. N_CC = 12 dozen^-1.

edited to add "and neutrons" - oops.

 

[Zep]

1 mole. (This HAS to be done!)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is you is, or is you ain't agreeing with me that "dozen" and "mole" are completely equivalent? If a dozen is a number, then a mole is also a number, albeit a much larger number.

Your fancy-pants latex-formatted equation works exactly the same for moles and dozens:

You's absolutely correct, sir. When used in the calculation of bagel counts, a dozen is a constant.

Next topic:

, number or mathematical constant?

It's a number. However, it can be used in contexts where it is a constant. For example, there are

radians in a half circle.

Think this is a bit pedantic? I figured we might as well discuss something that doesn't go 'round in a circle forever.

Moles and dozens are interesting in that the term is defined to be a certain number, which number then has units of [latex]${\rm term}^{-1}$[/latex].

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It depends upon the number of compounds or chemicals present in 1st starting material. I never seen somebody using damiana cm or sabal serrulata 1m because these have no results in 1m or 200.

How does it depend on the number of compounds in the MT? Please explain the chemistry.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dimensionless constant or quantity

It appears that I would do everyone a favor by dropping this constant vs. number nonsense and using the terms dimensionless constant or dimensionless quantity instead.

~~ Paul

 

[Ririon]

...
Think this is a bit pedantic? I figured we might as well discuss something that doesn't go 'round in a circle forever.
...

~~ Paul

By all means continue... If our favourite Pakistani is annoying, you are about 3X annoying. Less than me on any day...

 

[Art Vandelay]

But I don't see how it follows that N_A is dimensionless. If we take the dozen as the unit of substance, we could posit CurtC's constant, N_CC, which the SI might define as the unit of the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are protons and neutrons in a nucleus of ¹²C. N_CC = 12 dozen^-1.

If you consider N_A to be 6.02 x 10^23 mol^-1 and N_CC to be 12 dozen^-1, then N_A=N_CC=1 (which why we can multiply by it without changing anything). I'm not sure why we need to have a bunch of different names for the same number.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I may be a ridiculous pedant, but not as ridiculous as this fellow:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/8/4/011

~~ Paul