SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : Amazon Natural (AZNT)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: bmart who wrote (4472)9/9/1998 3:05:00 PM
From: jhild  Read Replies (1) of 26163
 
Double talk buddy. Maybe call you BMartBMart.

Look at that nonsense you just posted:
As far as molecular wt, convert grams into moles.
Domingos Jr. probably knows better than that. Do you think that moles are something that ruin lawns? Because your definition is in fact backwards. Grams is a unit of weight. Mole is a dimensionless number. It is a quantity. (Avogadro's number is the number of units in one mole. 6.022 x 10^23. When you weigh that many units of a substance you have grams per mole of that substance. For the compounds listed on the TON page, this is a simple summation of the product of the number of each element in the molecular formula and each element's atomic weight. Exactly as stated by Arcane Lore.)

Here's a tip: you abuse your subterfuge by discussing the length of the molecules listed. ( . . .the longer the chain,. . .). Then you compound your display of ignorance with the introduction of time (. . .the longer it takes to breakdown. . .). Just how do you figure time and length figure into molecular weight?

The only thing that is double bonded here is that egg on your face.

(BTW, thanks for clearing up the confusion about organic chemistry being carbon based. I am guessing it must have been your own.)

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext