The Big Idea Behind Avogadro's Number (That Most People Miss)

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 19. 08. 2024

Komentáře • 244

  • @camembertdalembert6323
    @camembertdalembert6323 Před 8 měsíci +104

    As a french high school physics and chemistry teacher, I am flabbergasted by seeing in^3, cm^3, ft^3, MnMs and ESB in the same formula. I've always though that the universal american unit of measurement of all things was the football field.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +17

      We're a hot mess over here when it comes to measurements. 😂 We do force them to use SI in the lab, but you can't get anyone to use the metric system outside of science class.
      It does give us lots of practice converting units.

    • @jimvinson6046
      @jimvinson6046 Před 3 měsíci +1

      Chemists in USA have solutions & are skilled in both metric and English systems of units. NO PROBLEM!

    • @camembertdalembert6323
      @camembertdalembert6323 Před 3 měsíci +2

      @@jimvinson6046 no problem, but they lose time and energy. not to mention the risk of errors.

    • @ChaineYTXF
      @ChaineYTXF Před měsícem +1

      ​@@GuillotinedChemistryThis is a useless use of your time.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před měsícem

      ​@@ChaineYTXF dealing with English/metric or responding to comments? (Or making CZcams videos) 😂

  • @rand49er
    @rand49er Před 8 měsíci +14

    Very smart people back then to propose new theories like this. I love hearing about the history of scientific discoveries.

  • @paulrosa6173
    @paulrosa6173 Před rokem +11

    I once took a state sponsored course in Water system operation to get the certificate. I was serving as a commissioner in the village district I live in. The district has it's own water system and at the time - over 30 years ago - it didn't have the income or population to hire professional operators like it now does.
    You have to use Avagadro's number to calculate chlorine dosage of the water stored in tanks and in the distribution pipes. I remember hearing and having to use that number in chemistry classes in high school and being confused by it. Other than a few sessions with experiments we didn't get a lot of practical demonstrations. It wasn't nearly as confusing when I saw it in application. It wasn't hard to use.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem +1

      Thanks for sharing that cool story. There definitely are times when you use the actual value for Avogadro's number. It's neat to see such a utilitarian example. 👍

  • @nophdcoyote3635
    @nophdcoyote3635 Před 8 měsíci +18

    And then the titrators emerged

  • @ruven8413
    @ruven8413 Před 10 měsíci +13

    hey, i just want to thank you for making these types of videos. chemistry, and all science and maths included, is so underappreciated and the grand history of scientific and mathematical discovery that shapes our world is so often taken for granted. its always so nice to see a small channel produce such outstanding content. love ur enthusiasm and keep doing what u love. thank you.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 10 měsíci +1

      Thank you so much for the kind words. I've also enjoyed learning more about the chemical discoveries most of us never learned. I'm enjoying the privilege of sharing this content with the community. I appreciate you checking out some of my videos! More coming (slowly but surely). 🤘

  • @GuillotinedChemistry
    @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +38

    Hey, this video got SECOND PLACE in Flinn's Mole Day contest. Thank you so much for the votes and the views... what a great community we have here!

    • @stefanieallen4645
      @stefanieallen4645 Před rokem +3

      I'd like to know who won first place.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem +2

      @@stefanieallen4645 There was another entry that got about three times the 'likes'. You can see all the entries at the following link... (Although, given the fact that this video is still attracting views like yours, I feel like I won. 😄) www.flinnsci.com/chemistry-week/mole-day-contest/

    • @stefanieallen4645
      @stefanieallen4645 Před rokem +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry thank you!!!

    • @KenFullman
      @KenFullman Před 8 měsíci +1

      Maybe it would have done better if you actually described HOW Jean Baptiste Perrin found the value rather than just tell us he did.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      @@KenFullman fair point! I cut a lot of stuff about the experiments used (Faraday, Millikan, etc.) to make the video a little more focused. To be honest, I remember Perrin's experiment wasn't the most intuitive of the bunch, but it was based on Brownian motion of the little spheres.
      Maybe a future video idea, though! 😄 Thank you for the comment!

  • @robertpendzick9250
    @robertpendzick9250 Před 11 měsíci +6

    Avogadro's number sets a definite limit on the number of Avocados that a defined mass of atoms can create in the universe. Postulate an Avogadro number of avocados how many universes would you fill?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 11 měsíci +2

      NICE! One of the best Avogadro's number examples I ever heard was that a mole of basketballs would be about the same volume as the Earth. So a mole of avocados would be much smaller... maybe the size of the Moon (ish)? 🌛

    • @lhpl
      @lhpl Před 8 měsíci +1

      That would be N_avocado, right? But if a mole avocados is the size of the moon, and the moon is made of green cheese, then what is N_gorgonzola?

    • @robertpendzick9250
      @robertpendzick9250 Před 8 měsíci

      Gooey @@lhpl

  • @AKumar-rd1sf
    @AKumar-rd1sf Před 7 měsíci +2

    Sir i am watching this video after 2 year , I am in class 9th but still You taught so well that i could clear my doubt very clearly .
    Thank u sir for such a content ....

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 7 měsíci

      Such kind words! Thank you and I hope the rest of my content proves equally valuable to your self education. Keep up the great work! 🎉

  • @mynt4033
    @mynt4033 Před 5 měsíci +1

    4:01 thank you SO much for explaining this. I was trying to dig through the history of how Avagadro could have had the hunch that equal volumes of gasses result in equal particles of those gases regardless of substance. You made my day.

  • @shieldcracker
    @shieldcracker Před 2 lety +13

    What a great video. The bridge between the macro and micro is revealed. I think the academia should not dismiss the history and the context on which concepts such as these were developed. Consider that the path to discovery of these concepts is very similar to the path a student takes when learning complex or abstract topics. However as a student you dont have the resources of the experimentalists and many teachers unfortunately ignore all the context after all they are products of the system. Books are great but most of them present scientific or mathematical concepts and then focus on how to apply these to solve a battery of exercises ecncouraging mechanics over creativity.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +1

      I absolutely agree with you and I'm speaking as one of those chem teachers. Textbooks have managed to distill interesting stuff down to dry algebra practice. The history and the struggles are way more useful in showing how science is done than just showing they can get the same answer in the back of the book, IMHO.

  • @commonpike
    @commonpike Před 8 měsíci +3

    Whats a mole ? An insane huge number of atoms. Whats that number ? As many as go in a mole. Aha.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Pretty much. Once Dalton defined hydrogen's relative atomic mass as one, it set the stage for the conversion between grams and his atomic mass unit. So if one atom of hydrogen was one atomic mass unit, then one gram of hydrogen would be the numeric conversion between grams and amus... Avogadro's number. They could've used any giant number, but Avogadro's number allowed the atomic mass in amu/atom and the molar mass in g/mol to be the same. Almost too clever.
      Thank you for the comment!

  • @transparentphysics
    @transparentphysics Před 2 lety +6

    Nice video, GC. Yet another case of a physicist figuring out a big problem for you chemists! Good luck with the contest!

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +1

      The real contest is at www.flinnsci.com/chemistry-week/mole-day-contest/. Vote daily, my physics brother!

  • @timecode37
    @timecode37 Před 2 měsíci +2

    Put some respect on Johann Josef Loschmidt who first estimated/calculated the size of air molecules in 1865 and thus came up with the Loschmidt constant, which can fairly easily be used to determine Avogadro's constant (afaik you're not supposed to call it avogadros number anymore, but constant since it has an associated unit of mol^-1)

  • @eddarby469
    @eddarby469 Před 8 měsíci +4

    I agree that the value if Avagodro's Number is unnecessary because it cancels out in the conversion. I was shocked that I still remember the value and purpose of the number when I haven't used it for anything since freshmen chemistry.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      Couldn't have said it better myself! Super interesting... Super important historically, but if the number disappeared tomorrow from the face of the Earth, I think chemists would get along just fine. 😄 Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment!

  • @johneagle4384
    @johneagle4384 Před rokem +5

    Great Video. But, I believe it is important that students know the actual value of Avogadro's Number. It helps them have a better grasp of the scales involved and how small the atom really is. 6.022e23 is a really, really large number. Hence, atoms must be really, really small.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem

      The best analogy of scale I ever heard was if you had a mole of basketballs you'd fill the Earth. I think if you then compare that to the fact that a mole of carbon atoms is a tiny pile in your hand, then the scale, in my opinion, is slightly appreciable.
      I'm fine with teaching students the value (in fact I insist my students memorize it). I just hope teachers don't stop there as it is tough to comprehend a number that big. How interesting would it be to try to teach the importance of Avogadro's ideas without once mentioning the numeric value, for example?
      Thank you so much for taking the time to watch and comment. I hope you check out the other videos in my 'best of' playlist and let me know what you think. 🤘

    • @clarencegreen3071
      @clarencegreen3071 Před 8 měsíci

      By definition, one coulomb of electric charge passes a point on a wire carrying an electric current of one amp in one second. The number of electrons in one coulomb is 6.242 x 10^18. If you had that many grains of sand, how much sand would it be? Spoonful? Truck load? Train load?
      Turns out, it would be a lot more. Assuming a beach at the ocean is 100 yards wide and filled with sand to a depth of 6 feet with really fine sand, the length of the beach would be over 650 miles. [90 m wide, 2 m deep, about 1,000 km]
      Avogadro's number is roughly 100,000 times that. Or the beach would be long enough to wrap around the earth more than 2,600 times. Truly unimaginable. Yes, I have no life.

  • @glennshrom5801
    @glennshrom5801 Před 8 měsíci +3

    "Mole" over the fact ... I love the pun!

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Ha! I'll take credit for it, but it was honestly unintentional! I wish I had thought of it. 😂

  • @aryansingh7209
    @aryansingh7209 Před rokem +2

    This question just hit my mind at 1:30 AM. glad someone is out there to answer!

  • @WALLACE9009
    @WALLACE9009 Před 8 měsíci +4

    1 to 7 hydrogen to oxygen because O is 16 times heavier but there are 2 hydrogen atoms in water

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      Exactly! Dalton struggled with the idea of diatomics. Thank you for the assist there. :)

  • @cafefikar
    @cafefikar Před 11 měsíci +2

    Best historical explanation on the web for the concept, finally i think that I understand 🎉, i was worry about the number itself

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 11 měsíci

      Thank you so much! Yeah, it's fascinating how valuable the concept was long before anyone ever figured out it's actual numeric value. I'm so happy you got something out of it. 😁

  • @theLordsboy
    @theLordsboy Před 3 měsíci +1

    Great presentation. Factual, fun, celebrating the origin of quite remarkable conclusions.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 3 měsíci

      I appreciate such a kind comment! Thank you for stopping by and I hope you find some of my other videos equally enjoyable!

  • @kiberenigestsebez6633
    @kiberenigestsebez6633 Před rokem +3

    Mole has not been defined, particle not defined , so .. I give you 8/9 for clarity.
    History part 10/10

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem +1

      I'll work to earn that final point! Thanks for stopping by!

    • @kiberenigestsebez6633
      @kiberenigestsebez6633 Před rokem +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry
      I just subscribed your channal

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem

      @@kiberenigestsebez6633 Huzzah! Thanks for subscribing and I'm looking forward to you keeping me honest!

    • @jimvinson6046
      @jimvinson6046 Před 3 měsíci

      It is (the mole unit) intuitively obvious to chemists, we were born knowing things, and many more...

  • @dziprick3204
    @dziprick3204 Před 8 měsíci +2

    It is basically 1 gram of protons. Yes, I know the mass of the proton varies from element to element.

  • @johnward5102
    @johnward5102 Před 8 měsíci +2

    Couldn't have done it better myself. Actually, I couldn't have done it 1/10th as well because despite a lifetime's interest in chemistry I had never understood the historical background, against which it all falls into place. Great post, thank you, subscribed.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Thank you, sir! Yeah, I learned a lot making this video and I'm glad the algorithm is choosing to share it more widely. I have some more videos with some historical sleuthing especially with nomenclature, if you're interested!

  • @AnarchoAmericium
    @AnarchoAmericium Před 8 měsíci +3

    I find it weird that electrons were discovered before the existence of atoms.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      Good point, but remember the mass of the electron wasn't determined until around 1909. Thomson and others determined charge-to-mass ratios for it decades before, but not the actual mass, as I understand it. A lot of stuff happened pretty quickly around the turn of the century and I really need to dig into that more. Fascinating stuff and thank you for the insightful comment.

  • @JohnSmith-pd2dq
    @JohnSmith-pd2dq Před 2 měsíci +1

    very captivting, intaertaining, and useful lesson in chemistry ...

  • @official.rajarshidutta
    @official.rajarshidutta Před 8 měsíci +2

    Awesome video. Glad I'm on this side of youtube. I subbed.

  • @user-ul5pt1yb8z
    @user-ul5pt1yb8z Před 8 měsíci +2

    Thanks a lot

  • @shadeblackwolf1508
    @shadeblackwolf1508 Před 8 měsíci +2

    I remember in highschool we did an experiment where we too some long lipids, heavily diluted them and dripped one drop in a cup of water, that had chalk floating on it. Then we measured the circle formed in the chalk. This let us calculate a solid approximation of Avogadro's number

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Yeah, I've always seen that experiment, but have never done it myself. Sounds like it was memorable for you... Do you think I should I look into if for my students?

    • @shadeblackwolf1508
      @shadeblackwolf1508 Před 8 měsíci +1

      Assuming the property that the stuff if diluted enough and if the dilutant vaporizes fast enough, you should be left with a mono-molecular layer, you can even then calculate the volume of the cylinder, and the average atom to atom distance in the carbon chain. It's these kinds of practical experiments, even if the setup looks dull with no fire or intense reactions, that stay with people.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      @@shadeblackwolf1508 I might have to look that one up again. It's definitely a classic that deserves a second look. Much appreciated.

  • @tdumnxy
    @tdumnxy Před 2 lety +3

    Great video and nice 'set', presentation etc. Good to see a new video from you. I'm still going to cheer for team Dalton though!

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +1

      I used to dismiss Dalton's accomplishments as relatively minor accomplishments, but not anymore. I was wrong and he was a beast.
      Glad to be back and great to hear from you again, sir!

  • @George-ey4lx
    @George-ey4lx Před měsícem +1

    You misspelled continuous to the factor of 6.022 x 10 to the 23rd power😊

  • @xCorvus7x
    @xCorvus7x Před 8 měsíci +1

    2:59 Only a factor of two, not too shabby.

  • @oakleafwiffleleague
    @oakleafwiffleleague Před 2 lety +2

    Easily your best work yet

  • @GuillotinedChemistry
    @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +5

    Hey, big thanks to Flinn Scientific for giving me the motivation to dedicate the time to make this video! Did I blow your mind a little or are you left unimpressed? Let me know!

  • @pasixty6510
    @pasixty6510 Před 8 měsíci +1

    Yes, this number (which got standardized, even though never found), chimed the eve of modern chemistry. But coming back to relative Atomic mass, there‘s a question, I want to ask: For every element there are different isotopes. E.g. Hydrogen, Deuterium, Tritium. For heavier elements there are no Special names, as far as I know. When we read the atomic mass of elements from the periodic table, we get a number that must be some kind of average number. Take oxygen as an example. Merck PSE (my favorite App) tells me: 15.9994, as O-16: 99.757%, O-17: 0.038, O-18: 0.205. As we all know, these numbers are dependent on where your oxygen is from (closer or farther to the equator). So, what number did they take for oxygen?… Let’s take another example (I don’t want to rise into high masses): Take Lithium. I read 6.941, while Li-6: 7.59%, Li-7: 92.41%. How are those numbers found? Is there some kind of standard on how relative atomic mass is defined?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      You're right. The number on the periodic table is the average mass of the different isotopes based on their relative abundance. Higher percent dominates the average with its mass.
      You're also spot on that several elements have different averages depending on where you gather them (I feel like there are about eight like that?). I never looked into it beyond that, however. I'm assuming there are ways to determine the relative composition of the different isotopes of an element... I'll have to look into that. Thank you for the great question 🤘

  • @yeomanesque
    @yeomanesque Před 2 lety +2

    This is the best lecture on avogadro’s number. Where would i find more about how perrin found the number, 6.022E23?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety

      Thanks for the compliment and that's a great question about Perrin. His experiment isn't the most easy thing to understand, but maybe you'll have better luck than me. 😃 I feel like I found his paper/ book on the topic... So if I found it, I bet you could too? I'll see if I still have my old notes on this video....

  • @samirsalama5214
    @samirsalama5214 Před rokem +2

    great ..thank's from egypt

  • @wesleysmith2199
    @wesleysmith2199 Před 2 lety +2

    Outstanding video! Engaging content and expert use of the medium.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety

      Thank you so much! I really appreciate the kind words. Glad you got something out of it!

  • @stinkyoldmonk8982
    @stinkyoldmonk8982 Před rokem +3

    Sir, can you please explain how he came up with the avogadro number? I mean the actual derivation.
    And also how early scientist calculated atomic mass of elements?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem +1

      Thank you for the comment! So Avogadro never came up with a numeric value for the number of particles in a mole of something. His contribution was the idea that similar volumes of gas contain similar numbers of particles, regardless of the identity.
      There are lots of different ways to drive the value of what came to be known as Avogadro number. Perrin did a good job of summarizing some of the different techniques in the paper I referenced.
      As for determining the actual atomic mass of elements, that's a whole other thing. There were lots of disagreements about what the values should be or even if atoms existed. The whole concept of equivalents, for example, with an attempt to use some of the progress thay said made without officially condoning the existence of atoms.
      So that would be a lot for a comment section, but a good idea for an eventual follow up video. I hope you subscribe to the channel and see if anything else I have here is of interest to you! 🤘

    • @goodmaro
      @goodmaro Před 8 měsíci +1

      There's a fairly widely known method that's based on the assumption that molecules (typically of a fatty acid) can take up so much space in 2 dimensions to form a monolayer -- and empirically there's good evidence that monolayer forms -- and then by taking the 3-dimensional bulk density of the substances (which can be measured easily) and dividing it by that 2-d surface area, you get the size of that single dimension. From that you can calculate the dimension of the molecule, and so how many of them there must be in that space. Amateurs can use this technique to determine Avogadro's number to amazing precision given the assumption involved.

  • @DavidDLee
    @DavidDLee Před rokem +2

    Sorry, I've lost you somewhere at 2:16. How did Dalton find the ratio 1:7

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem

      An important question. As I understand it, Dalton looked at the way hydrogen and oxygen reacted and the data suggested 1 gram of hydrogen reacted with 7 grams of oxygen, which Dalton assumed was a 1:1 ratio of atoms. So an atom of oxygen would theoretically be 7x the mass of a hydrogen atom since the 1:7 mass ratio should scale down.
      Now those masses were off, but the concept was sound. For example 12 grams of carbon will react with 16 grams of oxygen to form carbon monoxide (CO). No matter how much you scale that up or down that 12:16 (3:4) mass ratio will always be there, be it pounds, tons, milligrams or Dalton's atomic mass unit... The relative mass of individual atoms.
      Thank you for the comment... Let me know if that helped at all. 😄

  • @OmarTravelAdventures
    @OmarTravelAdventures Před 8 měsíci +1

    Great video. One recommendation for the future, the handwriting is unclear. I know it makes it sexy to do those handwritten notes, but I would either change the handwriting itself or just type it.

  • @josemarcos6441
    @josemarcos6441 Před 3 měsíci +1

    Avogadro's number is Just a number, not a fundamental constant of Nature. It is temperature-dependent. The same mistake happens to Boltzmann's constant. It is just an energy unit conversion factor. Has no physical meaning. Both them.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 měsíci

      Yeah, I've read not everyone is thrilled that Avogadro's number is a fundamental SI unit (like the Boltzmann constant). Out of curiosity, why would Avogadro's number be temperature dependent if it defined as exactly 6.02214076 × 10^23 elementary entities?

    • @josemarcos6441
      @josemarcos6441 Před 2 měsíci +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry This number is just a convenient way to express the large number of particles in a usual gas sample. Could be a dozen or a thousand. For actual gases, like Van der Wall, the ratio PV/kT is temperature-dependent. In general we have the virial coefficients. The relevant fact is that in the equation PV/kT = N, the number N is always a integer, denoting the basic atomic hipothesis, Likewise, Boltzman's constant is not a fundamental one, but just a energy converting factor.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 měsíci

      @@josemarcos6441 I agree that Avogadro's number is an arbitrary number, but at its current value it allows the value of molar mass to mirror atomic mass so I guess it's a special type of arbitrary. 😂 Again, thanks for bringing up boltzmann's equation... I'll have to look more into that!

  • @BruceCurrivan
    @BruceCurrivan Před 6 měsíci +1

    6×10 exponent 23 rounds to exponent 24. So mole day should possibly be October 24?

  • @vincentrotunno1479
    @vincentrotunno1479 Před 2 lety +3

    avacado**

  • @phyarth8082
    @phyarth8082 Před 2 měsíci +1

    Loschmidt number ?

  • @raylambert7227
    @raylambert7227 Před 8 měsíci +2

    So thankful I went into art...I would have made such a terrible chemist.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      So glad I went into teaching... I think I would've made a middling chemist myself. I think there was a 50/50 chance of me ending up either rich or dead as a chemist due to some lab mistake. 😂

  • @simonvh7092
    @simonvh7092 Před 8 měsíci +1

    Given the scientist were fine without knowing the secret number N, what are the things we can do now with this number that was unavailable before? Is there a great benefit to knowing what it is? If not why do we use it so much in school, and if yes is there unanswered question we should be investigating utilizing this newfound number?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      I am sure there are uses for the number, but in first year chemistry, it is mainly used in trivia calculations (i.e. how many atoms are in 23 grams of copper, etc.) you don't really need to use it for any practical purposes in the lab (unless you're trying to find its value).
      It was important to find because it allowed atoms to be measured in grams as opposed to a relative weight. But I agree with what I think you're saying... It surprises students that we were doing pretty well without knowing its value.

  • @bmeht
    @bmeht Před 8 měsíci +1

    This is great content. Thank you.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      I truly appreciate you taking the time to leave such a comment. Thank you! 🌟

  • @sciencenerd7639
    @sciencenerd7639 Před rokem +2

    Interesting, I didn't know that the number was adjusted in 2019

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem +2

      Yeah! I could do a whole video on how the value of constants have changed (which sounds like an oxymoron) ⚖️

    • @sciencenerd7639
      @sciencenerd7639 Před rokem +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry I would like that. I know the definition of a foot was changed slightly a few decades ago to make conversions between imperial and metric more convenient, and I know the kilometer definition changed slightly to make a speed of light a convenient number.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem +1

      @@sciencenerd7639 I'll put it on the idea list. My brother wrote a couple TED-ED videos, one of which hit some of the stuff you mentioned. Look up 'why the metric system matters'.

    • @sciencenerd7639
      @sciencenerd7639 Před rokem +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry I went and watched it, good stuff

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem +1

      @@sciencenerd7639 he's my twin brother, so I'm not impartial, but I think all of his are pretty good!

  • @Ezhil-dq8op
    @Ezhil-dq8op Před 8 měsíci +1

    Bruh I wated or you to tell how exactly they determined the value

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      You can do that multiple ways. But the big one was Perrin's work, based on Einstein's theories using Brownian motion. Sorry, the nuts and bolts of that were outside the scope of this video, unfortunately.

  • @xamishia
    @xamishia Před 8 měsíci +1

    Thanks! Now do a video on Perrin please!

  • @GoatChease
    @GoatChease Před 2 lety +3

    This was actually super interesting.
    Do you have any book recommendations on science/chemistry? I've been reading some Jordan Ellenberg books and really enjoying them.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +1

      My favorite is called 'Alchemy Of Air', but I'm reading 'how to talk to a science denier' right now and it's good too. Of course I can't forget 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb'... That could be a textbook for an introductory course.
      Thanks for the question and the kind words!

    • @GoatChease
      @GoatChease Před 2 lety +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry How to talk to a science denier sounds extremely topical. Thanks for the recommendations!

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +1

      @@GoatChease Go search CZcams for Lee McIntyre and you can see a bunch of talks with the author. Extremely interesting.

  • @SUPERHAPPYFUNTIMEYAY
    @SUPERHAPPYFUNTIMEYAY Před 2 lety +2

    This is awesome!!! Where can I find more science history?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety

      My last couple videos have been hitting on it unintentionally. Especially the nomenclature videos on bi vs di and hydro vs hypo. Let me know if you like them. I'm glad you like the history... A lot of stuff I never knew!

    • @wesleysmith2199
      @wesleysmith2199 Před 2 lety

      Take a look at Kathy Loves Physics and History on CZcams. The lady can tell a good story.

  • @axio8
    @axio8 Před 8 měsíci +1

    Great video. Wish you get Avogadro's number of views. Now only if we can find out how long would it take 🤔

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      Hey, the algorithm has been very generous with this video for the last week or so... I'm 0.00000000000000000005% of the way there! But that also means everybody has to watch it 75,250,000,000,000 times, so you better get started on your part. Thank you for the kind comment! :D

  • @jeff-hopkins
    @jeff-hopkins Před 6 měsíci

    In highschool chemistry class, in the mid 1980's, I learned Avogadro;s number as 9.08..... When and why was the value altered?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 6 měsíci

      Honestly, I've never heard the value used. Are you sure it was avogadro's number? Or perhaps was your teacher mistaken? Very curious...

  • @lisizecha9759
    @lisizecha9759 Před 8 měsíci +1

    Just for comparison,
    the surface of the earth is 500 million square kilometers, or 5x10e20 square millimeters
    A strand of really fine hair, like on a child's arm, has a diameter of about 40 µm, or about 1000 per square millimeter
    Now imagine the whole world covered, and I mean packed like a brush, with fine hair and there you have it:
    6.022e23 strains of hair

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      So many fun examples! Thank you!

    • @lisizecha9759
      @lisizecha9759 Před 8 měsíci +1

      I'm sad to report, that a mole of bananas compared to the size of earth is off by a factor of 10:
      156,1 cm^3 (size of banana) times N equals 9.4E12 km^3
      almost ten times the size of earth at 1080 billion km^3 or 1.08E12 km^3

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      @@lisizecha9759 so close! My favorite is that a move of basketballs would be about the size of the Earth. Maybe you can check them out on that one too. 🖖

  • @FL2070
    @FL2070 Před 8 měsíci

    This video makes me want to clear my throat.

  • @IcarusGravitas
    @IcarusGravitas Před 8 měsíci +1

    There are approximately a mol of stars in the visible universe!

  • @nova_supreme8390
    @nova_supreme8390 Před 8 měsíci +1

    Isn't Avogadro one of those unforgivable curses?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      Ok I had to look this one up. 😂 Avogadro is slightly different from Avada Kedavra.

  • @stewartbrands
    @stewartbrands Před 6 měsíci

    If like speaking in front of people, and you want them to concentrate on what you are saying and meaning, then you would be more effective without a facial anomaly.
    This is just simple psychology. Distraction is where a very small anomaly can have large distracting effects.
    It is the same principle as needing quiet when studying.

  • @kanchipuri
    @kanchipuri Před 4 měsíci +1

    Huh what the hack ????????

  • @Raphael_NYC
    @Raphael_NYC Před 8 měsíci +1

    Wonderful explanation. Thank you. raphael nyc

  • @goodmaro
    @goodmaro Před 8 měsíci +1

    One fascinating fact is that Hahnemann, he of the theory that diluting drugs could potentiate them, was a believer in Avogadro's number, and assumed that there would be some dilution beyond which this homeopathic principle would not work because you'd have no molecules left. But he thought he got results out to at least E+30 and so assumed Avogadro's number had to be greater than that. What's funny is when Avogadro's number was actually determined and disciples of homeopathy kept on believing in the effectiveness of dilutions beyond it!

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Thanks for that insight! I've never heard of Hahnemann and I appreciate the introduction!

  • @paulsutton5896
    @paulsutton5896 Před 8 měsíci +2

    Ha! What a fool Harry Stottle was!

  • @ulysses_grant
    @ulysses_grant Před 2 lety +2

    Landed here by NightHawkInLight.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +1

      Thank you for stopping by! NightHawkInLight is the man. 😎

    • @ulysses_grant
      @ulysses_grant Před 2 lety +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry Agreed. I just loved your channel btw, great content! God bless for sharing such knowledge!

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety +1

      @@ulysses_grant I appreciate the kind words! I'm glad you've found some decent stuff here!

  • @JavSusLar
    @JavSusLar Před 8 měsíci +4

    The reason why Avogadro's number is so big is because it is a CUBE number. Take the cubic root and it will become comprehensible: 84,446,885 is the number of atoms along the edge of a cube that contains a mol of atoms.

  • @Panginu
    @Panginu Před 2 lety +2

    too complicated for me ;(

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety

      Yeah, this is a little early for you, but it'll make a lot more sense later in the year...

  • @guruware8612
    @guruware8612 Před 8 měsíci +1

    so the greek said Atomos, how come in english its now spelled like Adam ? that Adam that is so small, poor Eve :)
    the name of the guy mentioned before was Aristoteles, why its' now "Aristotl" ?
    i school we learned that names are not to be translated, looks like this applies only for non-en. speakers, english speaking folks can translate/transcribe however they want.
    to confuse the worlds population ? like sticking to feet and inches no matter what ? a superiority complex ? or what is it ?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      I think the idea that names shouldn't be translated it a great idea. We English speakers do like to pronounce and spell things in our own goofy ways... no doubt. I, for instance, added an extra 'i' at the end of Cannizaro and kept calling him Cannizario for some reason. Sigh.

  • @fg786
    @fg786 Před 8 měsíci +1

    0:34 1 MnM is 60 cm³?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      .6 cm³! There is a decimal there, but I definitely should've put a zero before it to make it easier to see. Question for you... how'd you get that superscript to show up in a comment? Is there an easy way to do that? (Asking for a friend...)

    • @fg786
      @fg786 Před 8 měsíci +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry It's a german keyboard layout and the keys for 2 and 3 give " and § as caps characters and ² and ³ with the Alt Gr modifier key. But these are the only exponents one can usually do.

  • @KaiHenningsen
    @KaiHenningsen Před 8 měsíci +1

    This has me scratching my head. Are there really teachers that *don't* explain as one of the very first things that Avogadro's Number relates atomic weights to grams? I mean, that's typically how you use it in school, so ... why?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Great question. I think a lot of teachers ONLY use Avogadro's number as a conversion between atoms and moles. which in my opinion misses the point. The concept of equivalent masses is extremely useful even without the number.
      Think about it... does a student need to know the exact number of atoms in a test tube or that the ratio is correct for a chemical reaction? Outside of trivia conversions, the first year chemistry student actually will never use Avogadro's number because the actual number of atoms or particles is certainty interesting, but irrelevant to a chemical reaction as long as they understand the ratios.
      But that's what I think. 😁 Thanks again for stopping by. I really appreciate it.

  • @antonychipman3088
    @antonychipman3088 Před 8 měsíci

    Reference 2:59s: From the molar mass of H2=2.01568 g/mol, the atomic mass H=1.00784 g/mol. Why have an unnecessary error, bungarrow?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci +1

      Hydrogen is one of the dozen or so elements with a range of values. 1.00784 is the lowest, I think. It can go as high as 1.00811 according to the IUPAC. I think it really depends on where you take the sample. iupac.qmul.ac.uk/AtWt/
      What's a bungarrow, by the way?

    • @antonychipman3088
      @antonychipman3088 Před 8 měsíci +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry wow that is fascinating. i would like to know mor3 about that. Like, it can’t be an isotope thing… i really can’t imagine what’s going on there. you say it depends where you take the sample? Is that a latitude consideration or a pressure consideration or something? btw, I take it back about the bungaree’s thing… it’s a Australian aboriginal name for a goana. it was kind of harmlessly chiding the error, but now I’m going to find out some more about that variance. thanks a lot.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      @@antonychipman3088 Honestly I'd like to learn more about it too. There's a cited article that talks about the ranges. I'll have to read it so see if there's any explanation...
      www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pac-2016-0302/html
      Thanks for your interest in this!

    • @antonychipman3088
      @antonychipman3088 Před 8 měsíci +1

      actually, i did the research. It is

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      ​@@antonychipman3088interesting. I assume something similar for the other elements too. Thank you for taking the time to keep me in the loop!

  • @smurp_com
    @smurp_com Před 8 měsíci

    As a student I found that the essence of Avogadro's number was opaque until I realized that...
    Avogadro's number is the number of carbon atoms in 12 grams of carbon.
    More usefully, it is the number of Daltons (average neutrons or protons) in a gram.
    Most usefully, it is the number of protons (or neutrons) in a gram (+/- 0.001)
    This is how it should be taught, because other relations can be derived.
    (edited for civility)

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      It is taught that way. I would say that a curious student would respond to your definition with, "you say it's useful. Why? What am I ever going to do with that conversion?" Or they might even ask, "where did that come from?" Or "how did scientists connect the atomic masses on the periodic table to laboratory mass equivalents without knowing Avogadro's Number?" Or even " why are atomic masses the same value as molar masses?"
      Those are the more interesting questions, IMHO. Scientists were doing a lot with the concepts behind the number long before they had the number.
      Perhaps I put it poorly, but we definitely need students to be curious about the content. I think your definitions, though correct, are not super interesting to most students as they don't seem relevant to any laboratory level experience. They'll memorize that definition for you, but if you poke them to go further, they'll probably just shrug their shoulders.
      Thank you for taking the time to comment! 🤘

    • @smurp_com
      @smurp_com Před 8 měsíci +1

      Hi@@GuillotinedChemistry ! Sorry about the grumpy tone :-( I've fixed that.
      "Dalton's" (amus) are at a conceptual remove from protons and neutrons so are less approachable to the learners who haven't wrapped their heads around Avogadro yet. So that's why thinking of it in terms (roughly) as the number protons (or neutrons) is simplest. Grounding it so simply and deeply means there is essentially nothing to "remember", instead there is just this one, trivial, thing to understand.
      Thanks for your treatment of the material. I think your goals in this piece were different from what I've had to tutor learners about, re A's #.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      @@smurp_com I wholeheartedly agree that stating avogadro's number is the number of protons/nucleons in a gram is a good way of anchoring that idea for students. I think it's a bummer that that is as far as most classrooms go, but if you're tutoring students then I'm probably already preaching to the choir.
      There's not much to do in first year chemistry with the value of Avogadro's number besides trivia calculations. I think it is way cooler for students to grapple the way early scientists tried to connect the atomic and laboratory scales. But maybe I'm an outlier. 😄 Thanks again for the thoughtful response.

  • @beingsentient
    @beingsentient Před 2 lety +2

    I think you put too much emphasis on the fact that it took so long to find the actual numerical value of AN, implying that the number itself is secondary. In today's chemistry, the value of this number is indispensable, and you couldn't do much modern day physical chemistry without that figure. In my view, the reasoning of Avogadro up until the discovery of the magnitude of AN illustrates a common theme in the progression of science; i.e., more and more discovery of more important detail. It's neigh impossible to conclude what part of that progression is more important than all else. Who would be the judge of such a thing?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 2 lety

      The fact that it is in of the fundamental constants certainly means the number is important, I agree. But IMHO, introductory classes over focus on that number and it is rarely used outside of trivia calculations at that level. I find students struggle with the more important idea that the mole represents a measurable amount of an equivalent amount of particles. Molar mass is way more ubiquitous in first year chemistry and a lot of students struggle with what it represents. I don't think most teachers clearly understand where the actual value came into common use, so those were all my motivations to devalue the number.
      I absolutely appreciate your perspective and thank you for taking the time to comment.

  • @MrDino1953
    @MrDino1953 Před 8 měsíci +1

    Cannizzaro, not Cannizzario.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Ha, you're not the first to correct that! Not sure how I butchered that. 😎

  • @vitalic_drms
    @vitalic_drms Před 8 měsíci

    I’ve heard of avocado’s number 🤔

  • @economicist2011
    @economicist2011 Před 8 měsíci

    0:32 I can't help but wonder whether the orthography you use ("M∩Ms" with an intersection symbol) effectively nullifies any applicability of a trademark symbol. Perhaps a chemistry-enthusiast lawyer will find this comment and tell us all.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Who says I don't already have such a team combing over every word of my scripts? 😜

  • @christopherellis2663
    @christopherellis2663 Před 8 měsíci +1

    6 hundred trilliards

  • @drfill9210
    @drfill9210 Před 8 měsíci +1

    I'm guessing it's based around a gram of hydrogen

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      I think they toyed around with the number of atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12 (and then in 16 grams of oxygen-16?) and then they defined it at its current value in 2019 regardless of any measurement. But you're right... pick out any element and look at it's molar mass, that should be around Avogadro's number.

    • @drfill9210
      @drfill9210 Před 8 měsíci +1

      @@GuillotinedChemistry you don't have to carefully choose your words with me :) 😀 I just realised the important part of this is the gram. All atoms will have a ratio with any unit of measurement, although it is interesting that the lightest element coincides pretty neatly with 1 gram

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      @@drfill9210 the precursor to the mole was the gram- atom or gram-molecule as I understand it. So it was Dalton's aspirational relative atomic masses scaled up to the lab measurement of grams. Since Dalton decided to make hydrogen '1' in his relative masses, it's definitely neat how '1' in grams of hydrogen would give you Avogadro's number in atoms.

    • @drfill9210
      @drfill9210 Před 8 měsíci +1

      @GuillotinedChemistry I thought you knew a large part of the story and were simply looking for a way to agree with me XD 10 points for diplomacy! The only thing I can add to this is that I think that a gram is calibrated to 1 mol unisotoped hydrogen and there is no chance involved. You alluded to that... also I get why avogadro is so respected now. He figured out 1 mol occupies 52 liters... at least he figured out the same space.... which means you can get 52 litres of stuff, 52 litres of other stuff, then solve the common ratio differentially. The weight of the atom or molecule is simply the smallest divisible number you take from your weights of your smallest common unit... I think

  • @franksmildyears7323
    @franksmildyears7323 Před 8 měsíci +1

    It’s my phone’s password

  • @damond4
    @damond4 Před 8 měsíci +1

    The name is Cannizzaro, not Cannizzario.

  • @dreupen
    @dreupen Před 8 měsíci +1

    Nice video, BUT you missed one of biggest connections to Avogadro's Number. Just take the inverse of it. It's the mass of a nucleon.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Ha! Yeah, I guess you're right there! That would be a natural consequence of saying one gram of hydrogen is one mole. That's cool... Never really thought about it that way...

    • @dreupen
      @dreupen Před 8 měsíci

      @@GuillotinedChemistry As a physicist, I would say that the inverse of A.N. is a quanta of atomic mass. Or all of the mass (99.9%) is made up of nucleons. And then Mendeleev comes along and hints at the quanta of atomic charge..

  • @Unbekannt12
    @Unbekannt12 Před 8 měsíci +1

    Did you really say Valhallidated the idea?😁😁

  • @brun4775
    @brun4775 Před 3 měsíci

    Making October 23rd Mole day or Avogadro day makes no sense. It should be October 24th. Serious fail whoever came up with that.

  • @sacriptex5870
    @sacriptex5870 Před 8 měsíci

    click bait

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      I fooled that CZcams niche interested in Avogadro to click on a video about avogadro! You caught me 😂

    • @sacriptex5870
      @sacriptex5870 Před 8 měsíci

      @@GuillotinedChemistry nah you caught me

  • @kanchipuri
    @kanchipuri Před 4 měsíci +1

    Huh what the hack ¿¿¿¿¿😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

  • @user-nn4ru3zp4e
    @user-nn4ru3zp4e Před 8 měsíci

    Well I was expecting how this number is obtain, and this video is just talking and talking and talking

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Sorry I didn't meet expectations! Thanks for giving it a shot ... The point of the video was that number itself is the least interesting thing about the concept, but I'll work on hitting the mark better next time. I appreciate the comment!

  • @melissachartres3219
    @melissachartres3219 Před 8 měsíci

    Since this guy is a chemist- it's abominating to my ears for me to hear him say OH instead of ZERO where appropriate. I don't know why it's grating on me.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Most people just say they can't stand my voice, so that's a step up. :) Whenever I hear someone say OH, it reminds me of the movie Rushmore. But if you don't get the reference, I can see how it could offend.

    • @melissachartres3219
      @melissachartres3219 Před 8 měsíci

      @@GuillotinedChemistry I'll check out the movie. I've never seen it before. Thanks for the reply. Your voice is totally fine... I don't understand that opinion.

  • @branbello
    @branbello Před 8 měsíci

    If you want to impress try pronouncing it correctly.

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Which one are you referring to? I messed up a couple I think.

    • @branbello
      @branbello Před 8 měsíci

      @@GuillotinedChemistry You keep saying avogado

  • @ExplicitPublishing
    @ExplicitPublishing Před rokem +1

    I find your tendency to emphasize every word in your sentences using a variety of techniques like sound volume, pitch changes, etc. to be hard to listen to for very long and quite distracting from the content. Just saying.

  • @mejo843
    @mejo843 Před rokem

    I HATE CHEMISTREY

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem

      I've definitely heard that before. 🙂 Which part in particular?

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem

      @Moonlight Gamers the barriers between academic subjects is rather arbitrary. But for the record I strongly disliked physical chemistry too, back in the day...

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem

      @Moonlight Gamers a lot of students have a love/hate relationship with chem! 😄

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem

      @Moonlight Gamers there is something for everyone in chemistry (but usually something you dislike too...)

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před rokem

      @Moonlight Gamers thank you for subscribing! 🎇

  • @aessedai2739
    @aessedai2739 Před 8 měsíci

    I hate you mispronounced dalton

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      I definitely mispronounced Cannizarro, but what's the right pronunciation of Dalton? (And what did I say?) 😄

  • @sumdumbmick
    @sumdumbmick Před 8 měsíci

    at the time it was defined only one perfect cube fell within the error bars for the measured value. which means that if people were wise, then the current value would be possible to realize in a perfect cube of any given material. but because science is the nonsensical pile of gibberish that it is, it's impossible to make a perfect cube out of a mole of anything.
    as such, you should probably chill on trying to look like you're saying something worth listening to, because you're not. avogadro's number is now trash by definition.

    • @sumdumbmick
      @sumdumbmick Před 8 měsíci

      if we were to define the value sanely, as a perfect cube, which we could do, since we defined the value, then it would also be nice to follow that up with some other very basic changes to the measurement system.
      for instance, all of the base units should be related to this number. so the base unit for mass should be the mass of this number of helium atoms. the base unit of time should be this number of beats at the frequency of D3. the base unit of distance should be how far light travels in this time. the base unit for electromagentism should be the voltage of this many electrons. etc. and the reason for using helium as the reference is that it's the most stable configuration of protons, over the widest range of conditions, known. so using anything else as your standard would do things like curve your temperature scale, as the Kelvin scale is, so that there is no meaningful correspondence between units of thermal energy and units of temperature.
      but, by all means, keep doing it wrong and bragging about how great the way you do it is. that's just charming.

    • @sumdumbmick
      @sumdumbmick Před 8 měsíci

      at present we have things like the Coulomb, which is the charge of about 1 millionth of a mole of electrons. that's a scale disparity that we casually deal with in SI units all the time, so why not just actually make it a literal ratio of 1:1,000,000? but this also brings up the problem that a Coulomb isn't even physically realizable, because it's not a whole number. which means science is so absurdly broken that not only did nobody ever notice to link the mole and the Coulomb, but nobody ever bothered to rectify the fact that the Coulomb itself is an impossible quantity.
      good job. just amazing work you're doing there.

    • @sumdumbmick
      @sumdumbmick Před 8 měsíci

      if we carried the principle of not being complete buffoons even further, then we'd find some nice anti-prime to define this value as. that way you could not only have a perfect cube of that many particles, and relate all the base units to that number, but you could also divide those things evenly by things like... oh, let's say... a number that all toddlers know, like 3. which is currently so unattainable with SI that 13 1/8" is almost an order of magnitude closer to 1/3 m than 333mm is.
      an obvious candidate would be something like 14,414,400^3, since this is only about 200 times smaller than avogadro's number. it's a perfect cube by definition, and it's divisible by everything from 1 to 16, and a whole lot more values between that and the square root of 14,414,400.

    • @sumdumbmick
      @sumdumbmick Před 8 měsíci

      imagine being able to take 1 mole of a substance, put it into a perfect cube, and then perfectly divide that cube into a huge variety of smaller forms, down the particle.
      as it stands, the mole can't do anything close to any of that, because the value of avogadro's number is basically just completely random. but worse, we actively defined it to be that way, and have been proudly patting ourselves on the back for it for generations.
      that's up there with the dumbest things any religion does.

    • @sumdumbmick
      @sumdumbmick Před 8 měsíci

      your concluding remarks are the hallmark of a charlatan.
      'don't look behind the curtain'

  • @TheRm65
    @TheRm65 Před 8 měsíci +1

    I can't find Avogadro's number. Maybe I'll just send an email.

  • @fagica
    @fagica Před 8 měsíci

    Why do you pronounce "cannizzar i o" with an additional "i" between "r" and "o"? Just read what you see [ca ni za ro]

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      Good catch. Guess I like those ℹ️s... 🎇

    • @fagica
      @fagica Před 8 měsíci

      Yeah, like the people who pronounce Goebbel's name [gu R bels] with an extra R.@@GuillotinedChemistry

    • @GuillotinedChemistry
      @GuillotinedChemistry  Před 8 měsíci

      ​@@fagicawe do imagine a lot of stuff that isn't there, don't we? 😊

    • @fagica
      @fagica Před 8 měsíci +1

      yes, like god, or the gods @@GuillotinedChemistry