Oscar pulled an "Oscie" if I`m not mistaken, this a term used in football

[DEMVET-USMC]

for when a player retrieves a fumble and runs towards the opposing team`s goal line and if he manages to cross the goal line he scores a touchdown for the opposing team. Having said that I still think an Oscar`s number < or# > could be used for simplifying many calculations that do not require a high degree of accuracy. As far as I can tell the Atomic weight of a single Boron-10 atom is: 10.012936.Correct me if I am wrong here but that would mean calculations using < or# > would be off by more slightly more than one 1,000th. ...Oscar

[DrWeird]

1. Apparently you still don't understand.

"Oscar's number" as you defined it in the other thread, is off by a factor of 6.02, not 1/1000.

[DEMVET-USMC]

2. I spent some time determing the mass weight of a Boron-10 atom

Where am I wrong ? I am not saying I am not wrong, but asking where I am. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

3. Also ,I have been giving everyone the benifit of doubt, it is unfair to

refer to a post admiiting error as evidence regarding later postings by me. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

4. No,DrWeird,you don`t understand, I don`t have time to retype this thread

please read it and if you can explain to me where I am wrong please do. Keep in mind I am specifically using Boron-10 as my standard. How you can come up with a factor of 6.02 is a mystery to me. ...Oscar

[DrWeird]

6. Alright, for simplicity let's round the atomic weight of boron-10...

to 10 amu. Now in that other thread you say that the number of atom's in 10 grams of boron-10 is 1E23. You do this because you have difficulty working with Avogadro's number, and under the mistaken assumption that Avogadro's number is based on carbon, you decide to "simplify" it by changing it to "base 10" or "a multiple of ten", and define "Oscar's number" as shown above.

You, however, are way off. There is not 1E23 atoms in 10 grams of boron-10, there are 6.02E23 atoms, or Avogadro's number. Avogadro's number holds true for ANY substance, not just carbon, but all the elements, molecules, photons, what have you.

[DEMVET-USMC]

8. You are right ,I think.But,the number of Boron-10 atoms in 1 gram of B-10

is less than the number of carbon-12 atoms in one gram of carbon-12. This is a question and not an answer, because of that fact, is it not possible to derive an equation from Boron-10`s nucleon number of 10 that can be used for most of the practical uses of determining say, proportionals of reactants in chemical synthesis ? ...Oscar

[DrWeird]

9. Wrong again.

In one gram of pure material, there are more atoms of boron in one gram of boron, then there are carbon atoms in one gram of carbon.

Boron atoms weigh less then carbon atoms, therefore it takes more to add up to one gram.

"is it not possible to derive an equation from Boron-10`s nucleon number of 10 that can be used for most of the practical uses of determining say, proportionals of reactants in chemical synthesis ?"

I suggest learning how Avogadro's number works first, and then try to make a more simplified method. I think once you've got it figured out you'll realize how simple it really is.

[DEMVET-USMC]

10. I am specifying cabon -12 to boron-10 atoms, explain how there can be more

carbon-12 atoms in 1 gram than boron-10 atoms in 1 gram. It can not possibly be. Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

11. Keep in mind isotpes do not factor in . A Carbon -12 atom has 6

protons and 6 neutrons. A Boron-10 atom has 5 protons and 5 neutrons. How can there be more carbon-12 atoms in 1 gram than the lighter boron 10 atoms ?

[DrWeird]

13. Reread post 8.

There are more boron atoms than carbon atoms, you got it the other way around, so I corrected you.

[Salviati]

5. Here is what the problem is:

Boron 10

Mass : 10.0129 AMU

1 AMU = 1.6606 *10^-24 grams

So, 1 boron-10 atom has a mass of 10.0129*(1.6606 *10^-24) grams or 1.6627810-23 grams.

If we have 10 grams of boron 10, then there are 10 g/(1.6627810-23 g) atoms in this sample of 10 grams or 6.014*10^23 atoms...

The extent that this is not exactly Avegoddro's number is due to the fact that Boron-10 does not have a mass of exactly 10 AMU

[enki23]

7. it seems we could stop using avogadro's number

if we stopped using grams. if we measured everything in atomic mass units, we wouldn't have to memorize avogadro's number anymore. of course, you'll have some pretty enormous exponents to work with. but that's basically what everyone's been saying all along. you could invent a new mass unit to replace a gram which would give you round numbers to work with, but you might have a tough time getting your new unit to stick.

in any case, i prefer enki's number: number of cesium 137 atoms with a mass of one stone. 2.790420798803*10^25

[DEMVET-USMC]

12. I knew there was an element or compouhd out there that could

makee an easier number to work with. Thank you for your input. Oscar