[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 57 KB, 657x821, 1604079402940.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12298930 No.12298930 [Reply] [Original]

So if 1mol=6.022x10^23, and the Avogadro constant NA=6.022x10^23x1/mol, if we substitute mol in the avogadro constant we get 6.022x10^23x1/6.022x10^23 = 6.022x10^23/6.022x10^23 = 1. Where did i make a mistake?

>> No.12298940
File: 31 KB, 480x360, 1598236607885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12298940

>>12298930
Hol' up.
You tell me that NA = mol/mol = 1?!

>> No.12298947

>>12298940
Yes. Now please find where i made a mistake, I want to know how retarded i actually am

>> No.12298950

Yes, there is one mole per mole.

>> No.12298952

>>12298930
sure, you can make planck's constant 1 or speed of light 1, judicious choice of units.

>> No.12300514

>>12298930
You didn't make a mistake, you just used different units. There are dimensionless units, you know; the mole is one of them, and so is a dozen.

>> No.12300532

you are saying:
1 Mole is equal to 1 avogadro constant
1 AC=6.022*10^23 molecules. Not per mole. The constant is expressed independent from moles

>> No.12300563

>>12298930
yes. avogadro constant being defined as 6.022x10^23x1/mol is retarded and wrong. 1 mol is a scalar, it is 6.022x10^23