19 ms·
Avogadro's constant or number makes things relatively simple as you can treat 1 gram as 1 u and just work in moles. You have 100 grams of something, divide that
by Ekaros 2y ago
Avogadro's constant or number makes things relatively simple as you can treat 1 gram as 1 u and just work in moles. You have 100 grams of something, divide that by u or g and get number of moles of stuff. If you need to add something to react with, just multiply the number you just calculated with u of other stuff and get a minimum amount you need in grams.
It really doesn't matter that you have 6.02214097×10^23 things of something. Moles, grams and atomic units really only matter. You never go to yoctograms(btw defined in 1991). But instead deal with numbers above 1. Which is doable calculating by hand even. Avogadro is there just to tie 1 atomic mass unit to 1 gram.
Technically you could do it all on kilo, hecto, deka, deci, milli, micro moles... Depending on scale you work. As long as you keep it constant... In the end it is just moving the deciman point in the weight.
- EnigmaFlare 2y agoCan you write out a specific calculation using Avogadro's number/moles/u/etc. so I can do the same without those and see if it's actually any easier? "treat 1 gram as 1 u and just work in moles" Surely that's no easier than treating 1 gram as 1 yocto-gram and just working in yotta-things. > You never go to yoctograms You can and it's both as easy as moles to work with and conceptually simpler. That's why I'm saying we don't need all the Avogadro's number stuff since we do already have yg even if nobody uses it. Just to be clear, I'm talking about how it could be done. You seem to be talking about how it is done. I'm not denying how people actually use it, just pointing out that it's a giant needlessly-complicated historical legacy.