Nope, Avogadro’s number is dimensionless. It is the number of particles in one mole of a substance. Quite independent of measuring system.
Quoting from here:
[quote]
Put simply, one mole of any substance contains Avogadro’s number of molecules, atoms, or “elementary entities” of that substance:
[ul][li]One mole of gorillas contains 6.0221367 x 10[sup]23[/sup] gorillas. [/ul][/li][/quote]
No, Popup. Avogadro’s number has dimensions of mass^-1.
The number you refer to is properly called a gram-mole.
I agree with Popup. This [url=http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/19991123.html] supports that.
Oh, no! Don’t give up! It’s just getting interresting.
That was a very interresting page you mentioned. I do fear that it is a bit conservative / authoritative though. (It claims for example that using ‘data’ as anything but a plural is wrong. Even American Heritage now supports using it as singular. (And they are known to be retrograde traditionalists) )
Nevertheless, it’s interresting to see that there are different opinions on the subject. This is the first time I have seen Avogadro’s number / constant as anything but a dimensionless number, but then I haven’t really been studting the subject.
May I ask where you have come across this concept of a unit-dependant constant?
My exposure has mainly been in (European) physics, but it is of course possible that other scientific branches have other conventions. Do people in the US use ounce-moles, or anything such? I have never seen it in literature, but it would not surprise me if 19th century scientists would have used their own schemes.
Firstly, I should correct an error in an earlier post. I should have said “Only in cgs or SI units. In mks units, you’re…” I had forgotten that SI differs from mks in this one critical respect.
Unit dependent constants shouldn’t be all that surprising. You know that c = 3 x 10[sup]8[/sup] m/s, and that if you express it in different units, you get a different number. You can express c as 186,00 miles per second or some other number of furlongs per week, etc.
It’s only dimensionless numbers like pi and e that don’t depend on units.
Damn. As soon as I posted I remembered.
Whether a number is considered dimensionless or not can also depend on the system of units.
For example, in SI, the permittivity constant is 8.85 x 10[sup]-12[/sup] F/m, but in the Gaussian system of units, the permittivity constant is just (4pi)[sup]-1[/sup], i.e. dimensionless.
Sure Desmostylus. I agree that you could define Desmostylus’ constant as “the number of C-12 atoms in 12 ounces of pure C-12”. What I question is wether it is normal to define Avogadro’s constant with anything but grams as a base.
Any cites would be interresting!
I have never seen it myself, but it would not surprise me if there are such conventions. Please show me!
<sulk>AH, COME ON, GUYS! My OP was about skin conditions! Now, do I have a minor blemish, a mole, or Herod’s Evil?</sulk>
Oh, okay. In mks units, Avogadro’s constant is 6.022 x 10[sup]26[/sup]. That’s what I meant by this whole hijack reply.
http://www.mcallister.com/vacuum.html
You don’t need to accept the above site/cite as authoratative, that one just came up with a quick Google of “avogadro cgs mks”.
Geez. I told you days ago to go and see a doctor.
DANGERS DDANGEWR DAGNEWR ADANGEWR DANGER DANGER DANGER
Never remove stuff like that on your own! Moles, warts, tags, birthmarks, small dogs, those little fetuses from failed Siamese twins…
It’s a small burrowing mammal…
Sorry it had to be done.
CaptEgo: No, it didn’t have to be done. The very first reply to the OP already did it. Idiot.
Bosda, I also think it sounds (from your description) like a skin tag, but I don’t think we can be sure on the net. Until you know what it is and you’ve seen one before, I’ll chime in with the chorus of “see a doctor”, if only to give you piece of mind.
Otto’s link talks a little about how skin tags start, but I don’t think there is much detail there, and I haven’t seen anyone talk about skin moles. Anyone with a little medical knowledge want to educate us teeming masses? I’m interested as well.
For the sake of science, next time try duct tape. We know it works for warts, I feel only members of the SDMB can delve sufficiently into this mystery of the duct.
But of course it was far less meaningful then your erudite ongoing windbaggage regarding the numerical mole Desmo…
Good to know that our Idiocy is shared.
With tears still in the corners of my eyes, I’ll tell you about my latest mole encounter. I’ve had this really, really gross mole on the already unattractive hairy plain of my taint for some time. Now, I hate doctors, and am the type to take the care of minor ailments into my own hands. This type of thing was even more unlikely to go to the doctor about. I don’t need any liquid nitrogen that close to my sac.
So, I pulled the little SOB away from my body and snipped it with this pair of game shears I just bought. Oh crap. I only cut half of it. Now its bleeding and I can’t keep a good grip on it. Eventually, I got it all hacked off. It only bled for a couple of minutes, and only after I was done did my nerves catch up to me. I was out of breath and shaking for a good little bit. But now its over.