Question about AMU & Temp. Conversions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Euphoriet
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of atomic mass units (AMU) and temperature conversion between Fahrenheit and Celsius. An AMU is based on the mass of carbon-12, which is defined as exactly 12.00 amu. The confusion arises from the weight of protons, which is approximately 1.0073 amu. The conversation also touches on how to pronounce small decimal numbers, suggesting scientific notation as a clearer alternative.In temperature conversion, the formula for converting Fahrenheit to Celsius is discussed, specifically the calculation that leads to the same temperature of -40 degrees in both scales. The participants clarify that the conversion formula is valid, despite initial miscalculations. The importance of understanding the ratio of the scales and the correct application of the formula is emphasized, along with a note on the potential pitfalls of using decimal approximations in calculations.
Euphoriet
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
AMU
So... I'm wondering what the measurement of an AMU (atomic mass unit) is... I mean.. I've heard it's really the weight of a proton but then I'm told the proton's weight is actually 1.0073 amu.. so what is the amu based on then?

btw: how do you pronounce a decimal number such as ... .0007 or .0000009?

Thanks.


ALSO...

I was reviewing diff temp conversion and the "formulas" for them... I noticed something that kind of made me stop for a second...

(F - 32ºF) x (5ºC/9ºF) = C


Now.. knowing how both temps are the same at -40º, I worked it out and it doesn't quite work when it's done like this:


-40 - 32 = -72

now take 5/9 = .555555etc...

that means it can't possibly be -40 but instead around 39.999 or something...

Now.. if you instead cross multiple and simplify the 72 into an 8 and the 9 into a 1 then you get:

-8 x 5/1 = -40

My problem clearly is mathematical... so I'm wondering what I'm doing wrong.. and why with the two "valid" methods there is a difference, small but there's one.

I hope it's not some theory of how .999999999999999999999 is technically one.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Hello

Your first question is about carbon's 12-based amu system. If you look for carbon, you'll see that it is 12.00 amu, where its previous partner, oxygen, is 15.999 (formerly it was used as a standard to be 16.00).

English is not my native language, so I don't know how to pronounce it. However, very small numbers like 0.000000000007 or 0.0000000000009 could be expressed by scientific means; the former becomes 7E-12 (or 7x10-12), and the latter becomes 9E-13 (or 9x10-13).

Fahrenheit-Celsius conversion is very simple; the crucial thing here is that fahrenheit scale consists of 180 parts, while celsius has 100. Melting of ice is 0°C in celsius, but 32°F in fahrenheit, whereas boiling of water is 100°C in celsius, while 180°F in fahrenheit.

If you want to convert a temperature given in Fahrenheit to Celsius, simply subtract 32 from the number, multiply by 100, and finally divide to 180. The ratio 5/9 is actually 100/180.

I haven't heard of "same temperatures in both scales", so let's try it:

x=\frac {(x-32)*5}{9}; 9x=5x-160; 4x=-160; x=-40
 
Euphoriet said:
I hope it's not some theory of how .999999999999999999999 is technically one.

Lasciate ogni speranza :)


Chemical calculators for labs and education
BATE - pH calculations, titration curves, hydrolisis
 
You should always the modern fraction notation and not use decimal notation in intermediary steps,unless u use the \approx,\simeq signs...

Daniel.
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top