Oscar: The answer to my question is Boron-10

[DEMVET-USMC]

The answer to my question is Boron-10 whose atomic weight is 10 if no isotopes are allowed for as in carbon-12 being used as the base being used for Avogado`s number. I do hereby suggest that" Oscar`s number: the number of Boron-10 atoms in 10 grams of Boron-10" be used in place of Avogadro`s number because this will be a much easier number to work with in any applicable equations. Oscar - June 4,2004 12:17 P.M. : Copyrighted June 4, 2004 12:27 P.M.

[MrMonk]

1. Easier?

Not for people with six fingers on each hand.

[DEMVET-USMC]

2. Hi Rumpole, please , 10 or any number of times you multiply 10 times 10

will be an easier number to work with than Avogadro`s number. For instance it will be a simple matter of just moving the Decimal point in many of these calculations. Oscar

[Lucky Luciano]

3. Maybe I am not an expert on Avogadro's number,

but wouldn't the number of Boron-10 atoms required to have 10 grams be the same as the number of Carbon-12 atoms required to have 12 grams? I thought the number was defined so that it was the number of atoms requried to have the number for the atomic weight the same as the number of grams for the substance when that same number of atoms is used? It has been a VERY long time since I did chemistry so maybe I am wrong.

Secondly, are protons considered to have atomic weight = 1? I think I heard neutrons weighed ever so slightly less than protons and I think I remember electrons being 1/1837 of the weight of a proton. Is this right? Do all these components explain the fractional atomic weights we see in periodic tables or are there some other "very small" particles running around like positrons or whatever that affect weights? Maybe the fractional weights in the tables are a mass based on a generic sample of an element that does not consider isotopes, so with various isotopes mixed in, a fractional atomic mass would occur? I don't know - can someone enlighten a moron? (me)

[treepig]

6. lot's of values at:

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Category?view=html&Atomic+and+nuclear.x=71&Atomic+and+nuclear.y=14

including:

mass of a proton: 1.672621 x 10(e-27) kg
mass of a neutron: 1.674927 x 10(e-27) kg
mass of a electron: 9.1093826 x 10(e-31) kg

[DEMVET-USMC]

13. Thank you for that useful website. Adding it to favorites

Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

22. Thanks TP , I copied that for future reference.

I`m going to stick it one of the books I have for a Quick reference. Most of these books make it very hard to find that information which is obviously very useful to know. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

9. I never for a second think of you as a moron, I have to think about your

question, you may be right. My wife is asking me to get off the copumter so she can use it. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

16. I believe main point is correct, I am quite sure a neutron weighs slightly

more than a proton. According to Linus Pauling .14% more. Reference L.Pauling's: General Chemistry. It`s my understanding that a neutron in some way not fully understood, is a proton with an electron fused to it and that during radioactive decay one of the reactions that takes place is the emitting of an electron leaving a proton where a neutron once existed thereby moving that atom 1 position to the right on the periodic table. Another reaction that takes place during radio active decay is the emitting of an alpha particle which can be described as the nucleus of a helium atom [ 2 protons fused to 2 neutrons } this moves that atom 2 spaces to the left on the periodic table because of the loss of 2 protons. As far as I know when listing atomic masses, the average of all the isotopes of any given element are averaged in, often with a + or - a certain percent.You`ve been helpful to me and I do appreciate your interest...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

17. Pauling states that a neutron is .14% percent larger than a proton. I know

a neutron is larger than a proton, I am not sure if it is .14% larger. This book has been updated and reprinted 4 times. If that figure is incorrect I would presume the error was by of one of the republishers and not Linus Pauling`s. Linus Pauling is one of the pre-eminent chemists/physicists/scientists of all time. His work regarding the true nature of chemical bonding won him the Nobel prize in chemistry. This prize was not shared as is often the case. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

23. Hi Lucky:specific data as to your questions:these values provided by

treepig. To begin with the Atomic weight in the past was a simple count of the protons and neutrons of an atom. Now the atomic weights are more specific in the following ways: 1. The weight of the individual particles are factored in and 2. With any given element all the isotopes of that element are averaged in,often with a + or - of some percent depending on the element. Now, the following values regarding specific particles was provided by treepig and they are as follows: mass of a proton: 1.672621 x 10 < e-27 > kg :mass of a neutron: 1.674927 x 10 < e-27 > kg : mass of an electron: 9.1093826 x 10 < e-31 > kg. I know you are a mathematician and understand symbols. Some of my books list atomic weight and mass as the same thing. That may have changed since these books were written. I do not Know. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

24. I don`t know why but the [ ] symbols I posted changed to < >

when I posted this. ...Oscar

[treepig]

4. you are kidding, right?

:freak:

(see post #3)

[DEMVET-USMC]

21. As usual I don`t get your point, My wife was demanding I get off the

computer. Does that seem an unlikely event to you ? I did get back to Lucky when I could. Very often I simply have other things I must do and cannot always give timely responses. Surely you can understand that. Geeze, lighten up, at least a little bit. ...Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

5. The value of "Oscar`s number is 1x10 to the 23rd power = 1 gram x 10

equals 10 grams" and on and on in direction either as in milligrams or kilograms. This what I am speaking of when I say easy when Using "OSCARS NUMBER". June 4,2004 - 2:00 P.M. ... Oscar copyrighted: June 4, 2004 2:03 P.M. AS TO COPYRIGHTS ,FEEL FREE TO USE IT, just Call it "Oscar`s Number" becauase that is what it is. ...Oscar

[treepig]

7. no, it's 6.022 1415 x 10(e23)

i think it's time for two of these:

:freak:


:freak:


btw, boron-10 is an isotope

[DEMVET-USMC]

8. It is no more of an Isotope than carbon -12 is. Its the common form of

boron and event if it is an isotope the formula works. As usual all you seem to want to do is discredit me. ...Oscar

[sandlapper]

10. Boron 10 is no better than Carbon 12!

The significant point is that one gram equivalent mass of any element or compound will have the same number of atoms, for an element, or molecules, for a compound. That is what Avogadro's Number is. The only time I ever have a use for AN is in calculations such as mass of residual radioactive material after a given portion of its "half-life" has been expended. What use have you Oscar for AN?

[treepig]

11. really, by demonstrating that you do not even know

what an isotope is, you pretty much discredit yourself.

btw, the natural abundance of boron isotopes is Boron-10 @ 20% and Boron-11 @ 80%

i'll the let reader judge for him or herself which is the "common" form to avoid further discrediting you myself

[DEMVET-USMC]

15. Thank you treepig.

Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

18. Whether it is an isotope or not,it can be a standard that does not require

a high degree of accuracy as in most practicable actual uses of chemistry do not. I am not talking about scientific essays, simply a simple formula that can be used to quantify the proportions of reactants to mix together to create the desired compounds to create the very many compounds that do not require a precise amount of reactants, such as BHT. When I find find time which I do not have now you will learn of my copyrighted concepts as to BHT as an anti-viral agent against hepatitis -C and a very many other viral diseases....Oscar

[treepig]

19. despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you by several

different posters, you seemingly fail to grasp the simple reality that even if one mole consisted of a very easy to remember number of atoms, let's say 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 - the day to day laboratory work of a chemist would not be simplified in the slightest!!

here's an example that you might understand?? consider a mile - which consists of 5280 feet - based on your reasoning it would be "simpler" if a mile were exactly 5000 feet. however, the millions upon millions of motorists who drive x or y miles each day would not find their lives simplified at all - it's completely irrelevant - they would just get in their vehicle and drive to their destination like usual. instead, what this change would do is actually fuck everything up, like mile markers, mapquest directions, etc. therefore, at the end of the day, for those who notice any change, things would actually be much more complicated, rather than simplified in the slightest

[DrWeird]

12. I'm sorry to tell you this, Oscar, but...

There are 6.02E23 atoms in 10 grams of of boron-10. Despite what it may say in your high school chemistry book, Avogadro's number in not specific to carbon atoms.

[DEMVET-USMC]

14. Thank you Dr. Weird, Sounds right to me.

Oscar

[DEMVET-USMC]

20. I am sorry I did not think about what you said as it is so far off, I was

quickly going through the different responses to my posting and giving everyone the benefit of doubt , not much thinking about what they were actually saying. Your statement is weird to put it mildly. ...Oscar