Unknown2005-07-15 12:16:14
QUOTE(Kidaen @ Jul 15 2005, 07:08 AM)
Did you just call Estarra a man?
152723
I don't think it fair we make questions/statements that would insult our divinely patron. We don't want Her feeling hurt and/or embarassed by Her cross-dressing. Kaythanx.
Ixchilgal2005-07-15 20:23:22
1) "Heaven" and "Hell" are religious concepts. This was just a little side-note blurb on religion.
2) It has nothing to do with iron.
3) No, I'm not being serious. It's something I found a while ago.
4) I'm not saying I called her a man, but if I did call her a man, it was merely youthful indiscretion. And I didn't inhale.
2) It has nothing to do with iron.
3) No, I'm not being serious. It's something I found a while ago.
4) I'm not saying I called her a man, but if I did call her a man, it was merely youthful indiscretion. And I didn't inhale.
Unknown2005-07-15 20:30:02
QUOTE(Ixchilgal @ Jul 15 2005, 03:23 PM)
1) "Heaven" and "Hell" are religious concepts. This was just a little side-note blurb on religion.
2) It has nothing to do with iron.
3) No, I'm not being serious. It's something I found a while ago.
4) I'm not saying I called her a man, but if I did call her a man, it was merely youthful indiscretion. And I didn't inhale.
2) It has nothing to do with iron.
3) No, I'm not being serious. It's something I found a while ago.
4) I'm not saying I called her a man, but if I did call her a man, it was merely youthful indiscretion. And I didn't inhale.
152804
Stay on topic, kthnx. Back to Iron.
Unknown2005-07-16 10:23:12
Actually, dear "faith" the Iron was a hijack, and he was a lot closer to the original topic then we were.
Soll2005-07-16 10:29:26
He knows. He was making a funny. 
Sylphas2005-07-16 16:25:09
Can we discuss tungsten instead? It's a more interesting word, I think.
Shikari2005-07-17 07:59:54
QUOTE(Kidaen @ Jul 15 2005, 07:20 PM)
Uhm, I don't want to be a gamebreaker, but aren't atomic weight values determined by the simple fact that the weight of both a proton and neuron is 1? therefore making hydrogen weigh something like 1.0000000001 or something along those lines. Then these values were used to calculate all the other atomic weights.
I'm not sure on this though, it's been a while since I've done any nuclear physics.
I'm not sure on this though, it's been a while since I've done any nuclear physics.
152672
You're quite right, but I don't think I've explained what I was saying very well. Atomic weight is different to atomic mass, which you're talking about.
Atomic mass is the mass of a single atom.
Atomic weight, however, is the weighted average of the atomic mass of all naturally occuring isotopes of a chemical element. That's why the atomic weight of hydrogen isn't 1, but 1.00794+/-0.00007 - it takes into account the hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium (I think that's what they're called, little bit foggy on that).
Most precise analytical chemistry is done using atomic weights, from the IUPAC tables.
Unknown2005-07-17 17:23:21
Yeah, it's important to use atomic mass because occasionally you get something in there like a .4. And if you have any reasonable amount of the element in question, say 0.00001 grams, there are enough atoms there to bring their average mass very close to the atomic mass.
Shikari2005-07-20 08:07:07
QUOTE(Tamaranis @ Jul 18 2005, 05:23 AM)
Yeah, it's important to use atomic mass because occasionally you get something in there like a .4. And if you have any reasonable amount of the element in question, say 0.00001 grams, there are enough atoms there to bring their average mass very close to the atomic mass.
153429
It would depend.
Atomic weight is generally preferred by the analytical chem professors I've worked under - actual atomic mass tends to be frowned on.
However, that was largely working in the 'trace' parts of chem - 1-50 parts per billion, and things like that.
