What the heck is this?

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Thats how some that dont have nothing to add, but still go jacking up a lot of threads.


LOL, you can read back and see exactly where it started...with a clearly incorrect, off topic statement...

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Nano Buckballs would become graphene by engine milling anyway.


Lol yourself. Did you ever heard of parts friction (thats contact rubbing huh?) or even Boundary lubrication? Ever heard of Shearing of VII (thats polymers with less than 60 atoms) You should, since you love a Stribeck Curve Graph... GOTCHA, KKKKK

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Lol yourself. Did you ever heard of parts friction (thats contact rubbing huh?) or even Boundary lubrication? Ever heard of Shearing of VII (thats polymers with less than 60 atoms) You should, since you love a Stribeck Curve Graph... GOTCHA, KKKKK

60-atom polymer chains used as VII? Where did you study chemistry? I'm no expert on VII polymers but I'm going to guess they have molecular weights approaching a million, as do many polymer molecules. It's why they break down under shear.

"Buckyballs" on the other hand are extremely small spherical molecules that are very strong in compression. Nothing like a large highly branched polymer molecule.

 

[Pontual]

Man, I wont answer this argument of yours. ^Molecular weight^ approching millions of what? Dont you know molecular ^weight^ units? Of course not, since you're referring to molecular Mass, aren't you? The weight varies with gravity, but mass dont. Mols?
Good night.
Anybody else?
Give me a break (brake).

 

[Shannow]

LOL...

 

[Pontual]

 

[Shannow]

Knew I should have copied before your edit...

 

[Pontual]

Hah, gotcha! Again!


Dont you get embarrassed yourself?

 

[Pontual]

Edit.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Man, I wont answer this argument of yours. ^Molecular weight^ approching millions of what?

Pontual, you should know that chemists refer to molecular weight all the time when they really mean molecular mass. And if you're going to be pedantic, be sure you get it right. Molecular mass (molecular weight) is a dimensionless number, so don't bring up units at all.

 

[Pontual]

Ah, Every substance measurements use units, but wth. Well, all right, the "TEAM" wins! Happy now? If I dont surrender, this is going to be on forever and other bitogers dont deserve to keep reading this meaniless discussion. And more and more of the brotherhood of [censored]h*l@s will come, and the line is really long!
What ever, Im not paid by letters or lines here anyway.

 

[wemay]

C'mon now Pontual, you know you're one of the 'brotherhood'

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Ah, Every substance measurements use units


Of course, and 2nd year high school they teach you atomic mass units...as Garak states, a dimensionless number that compares molecular weight to a proton/neutron...so a molecular "weight" of 12, or 300,000 is the correct terminology, not needing any further explaination, nor confusion between "mass and weight".

If you have 6x10^23 molecules, it's that number in grammes.

 

[hemitruck]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Remember Arco-Graphite Oil from back in the day. Precursor to this ...

you mean the oil with graphite chunks that ruined engines?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Ah, Every substance measurements use units, but wth.

It's nothing to get upset about. Molecular mass is dimensionless; that's part of the definition. There are physicists and chemists here you can ask, plus all the online sources you want and chemistry textbooks in any library. Molar mass has units, but that's not the same thing. That's why we have to be cautious with definitions here.

When you divide mass by mass, you get a dimensionless number. There's a reason mathematicians have to keep an eye on chemists, you know.

 

[kschachn]

Man, I gave up on this thread and here you guys are still going.

Way to go

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Ah, Every substance measurements use units, but wth.

It's nothing to get upset about. Molecular mass is dimensionless; that's part of the definition. There are physicists and chemists here you can ask, plus all the online sources you want and chemistry textbooks in any library. Molar mass has units, but that's not the same thing. That's why we have to be cautious with definitions here.

When you divide mass by mass, you get a dimensionless number. There's a reason mathematicians have to keep an eye on chemists, you know.

Garak, all this time you guys were talking about RELATIVE (relative) MOLECULAR MASS, that is a dimensionless measure, just a sum of atoms mass. A utility substance (usefull SUBSTANCE, are made of several molecules) use units called MOLs and are calculated in grams. But I had promissed to stop if the brotherhood would sink the guittar in the sac. Im only one, but the lwst Man standing, a buch already bugged out. Kkk

 

[Garak]

That's molar mass, which is a different matter altogether, Pontual. Molar mass uses the SI unit of kg/mol, with g/mol commonly used in labs. That's why I said mathematicians have to keep an eye on these things.

If you use the wrong concept, you totally screw up your dimensional analysis, at the very least. Molecular mass is dimensionless, whereas molar mass is not. Believe me - that's intentional.

 

[Pontual]

Lol, 1mol of a Substance is x gram. Easy as that!

 

[Shannow]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_atomic_mass