5 ms·
Question to chemists here: why does article call it Manganese-Platinum alloy whereas composition numbers say that it contains much more Nickel, Strontium, and C
by mynegation 3y ago
Question to chemists here: why does article call it Manganese-Platinum alloy whereas composition numbers say that it contains much more Nickel, Strontium, and Cerium than Platinum?
- upon_drumhead 3y agoBecause it sounds more alien that way
- mynegation 3y agoManganese-Strontium-Cerium sure sounds more alien to me.
- _Nat_ 3y agoI'm not even sure what they mean by: > MnO: 2.109 (Mn: 0.6355) I mean, given that they were listing relative-abundances (by mass, count, or what?), it'd seem like they were giving the abundance of Mn alone, as a subset of the abundance of MnO. But since the numbers don't look right, not sure what they were trying to say. This isn't the sort of writing that I'd expect from someone with a scientific background. --- PS: If the relative-abundance (by mass) of MnO were 2.109, then the relative-abundance of Mn alone would be about (MolecularMass(Mn) / MolecularMass(MnO)) * 2.109 (54.938 / 70.9374) * 2.109 1.633330824 .. which I guess is actually kinda close to the claimed "0.6355", if we assume that the leading "0" was meant as a "1"? This is, maybe they meant to type: > MnO: 2.109 (Mn: 1.6355) ?