Moles

16 October, 2014 4 comments Leave a comment

« previous post   |   next post »

Leave a comment

Comments

  1. Quark Tees December 01, 2014

    Sorry Jacek, but you are incorrect. Avogadro’s number is indeed 6.022141527 × 10^23. While it is often shortened, the long version includes the numbers above.

  2. KASEY November 21, 2014

    Hey Jacek_
    Dang- thanks for ruining the fun! Actually, I am sure I would be mad at myself if I were to sport an inaccurate T-shirt, tho..

  3. Jacek Lecinski November 07, 2014

    Hi Paul,

    I’m asking myself the same question. You see, I think originally it was meant to be Avogadro’s number (google it!), which is defined as the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules, electrons etc) per mole of a given substance. And so this number as intended one should read as mole. However here first four digits (6.022…) and exponentiation are correct. The remaining decimal point digits belong apparently to the first fractional digits of number π! (3,14159265…) and still there’s “9” missing after the “5”, while the last “7” is of course “…65” rounded up :) So, all in all, it looks like everything is mixed up and by coincidence you may say you’re not behind :). These numbers does not represent anything. Well, one could say they represent “mole” to some approximation, however taking the fact that we’re dealing with matter in microscale, where the particles are counted (to paraphrase Carl Sagan) in billions of billions (you can see how big is the exponent) and more even for a very small amount of matter (e.g. 1 oz) it quite a huge deviation and using it for calculation would lead ultimately to incorrect results. Hope it clarified the problem :)

  4. Paul Gibbs October 21, 2014

    I am probably behind some kind of curve, but what do those numbers represent?