349:
molecular mass because they are commonly nearly identical numerically. For many common chemicals the most abundant isotopomer will be very close to the isotopic average and using them interchangably will often not have disastrous results and thus such misuse is perpetuated. I personally never ever do this because I measure molecular masses down to several decimal places every day. I am a top candidate for zealtory on this issue but try to moderate and explain. I thank you for the recent improvements they improve the clarity and accuracy. Your work is excellent.--
215:
6.02X10^23 copies of a subtance. For example, the molar mass of 6 X 10^23 atoms of carbon 12 is defined as exctly 12;....] then get more complex as a PhD, I know how hard simplifying things is; the intro sucks (sorry..) howerver, i no longer contribute to wik because *for profits* can re use my work I don't mind if a nonprofit takes what I have done, but I will be dam**ed if I will work for free so some rich scum sucking 1% can get even richer off of my work
74:
53:
264:
the problem. While we are discussing things I do not see the need to discuss kg/mol in the context of the molar mass versus molecular mass section. I fully understand the need to discuss it in general. It is discussed directly above in the introductory section. If we stick to g/mol within this section for the sake of simplicity of addressing the issue at hand without saying that it must be this or that everything is simpler and clearer. e.g.
22:
797:
managed a rather lacklustre grade C. What I do remember is that a "mole" was never described in any useful context, it appeared one day and we were apparently just expected to accept that it was a thing. I can accept it is a thing, but in order to understand the things that reference it, something a little more specific might be useful! --
325:
While NickY's sentence is clear and brief, unfortunately it is also incorrect. the numerical value of the relative molecular mass and the numerical value of the molar mass can vary by several units. The molar mass of natural water is 18.0152 g/mol, the molecular mass of natural water falls between 18
214:
17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC) as a scientist who has to use Molar concentrations all day long, I think the intro is impossibly confused and complex. It should be something simple like, molar mass is the mass (weight) of one mole of a substance; a mole is 6.02 X 10^23, so the molar mass is the weight of
176:
The molecular weight of sugar is 342 and that means there are 342 grams per mole. Its that simple! Why confuse things so tremendously by introducing the obscure Dalton unit and molar mass versus molecular mass?? Knowledge (XXG) isn't meant to be read only by PhD physicists and chemists ... it is also
146:
Molar mass is the mass of one mole of a chemical element or chemical compound. In SI, the unit is kg/mol. The molar mass can be obtained from the relative molecular mass (still often called erroneously molecular weight and abbreviated by MW) multiplying it by 0.001 kg/mol. there is no element called
396:
I have been working slowly on these related articles. They were in horrible shape before I got to them. They said things such as the molecular mass is the same as the molar mass but with different units. I certainly think there is much room for improvement and welcome your working on them. Probably
263:
to use the same units. I.e. that the molar mass of water could be described as 108.396x10 u. Conversely molecular mass may be expressed as some very small number in g/mol. There is no reason to do such a thing but the units do not differ by definition and the insertion of a single word gets around
796:
One what? I've scanned the article and some of the links and I've no idea what "one mole of that substance" might be. A kg? A cup? A swimming-pool? I have no idea. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, and vaguely remember the term "mole" being used when I studied O-level chemistry, in which I
311:
Your last sentence is clear and brief. BTW the reason for speaking about kg/mol is that this is an SI unit (not kg/kmol as I thought for a long time). But I too have the habit of ignoring SI, and speak for instance freely in kcal/mol, because I remember those values best. So it is OK by me if we
348:
I agree completely with you
Physchim. My statement is only correct when considering the most abundant isotopers of most elements. The point I was making was that it is common for lay people or even scientists not directly involved in such issues on a regular basis to confuse the molar mass and
432:
I agree completely. I have changed the sentence in question. I believe that the odd phrasing of the question was born of of SI unit zealotry and OR through synthesis. kg is base unit of mass therefore kg/mol is base unit of molar mass. Not true. I am glad to have some good editors helping out
249:. Both masses could be expressed in the same units (say kg), but then of course the numeric values would be different by a factor on the order of 10. I understand that you know all of this, but for clarity we should be careful about the formulation of these things.--
841:
redirects here, but isn't discussed here. Specifically, it is important for things that aren't molecular, such as ionic crystals. A standard formula is given, which gives the relative numbers of atoms, even without molecular units.
397:
you can find some places where I was not bold enough and too compromising to misnomers. I do think it is important to recognize that it is common practice even amongst chemists to use these terms interchangeably (incorrectly). --
861:
Would it be possible to add a few examples for compound calculations? Can be simple, and few examples but just as a quick explanation so that people can check that they did calculate the right values on their own.
326:
and 22 amu (not counting tritium isotopers). When you are talking about molecular mass, you simply cannot take only the most abundant isotopomer: it might be simpler, but it's just as simply wrong.
863:
369:
as a method of determining molar mass, and may be expand a little more on the question of polymers (not my speciality, but I can try...) The related articles also need to be looked at, especially
210:
The fact is that u, Da, g/mol, kg/mol are all used by physicists, protein mass spectrometrists, chemists, and SI-ists respectively. Tangled yes but we can't really sweep it under the rug. --
414:
I'm not sure the emphasis in "kg/mol being the SI unit" is needed, but what worries me the most is that a reader might get the idea that g/mol is not SI. The kilogram may be the
575:
of the atoms which form the compound multiplied by the molar mass constant" - do we change from atomic mass to atomic weights when considering compounds rather than elements?
259:
I agree with you for the most part. The issue that I was trying to avoid, which is an idiotic one in my opinion, is that there really is no restriction on units and it is
867:
629:
Agreed completely. Atomic masses have relatively little to do with the Molar Mass of an element and definitely not with the relation suggested. The key here is
124:
938:
291:"When the molar mass and molecular mass are expressed in g/mol and u respectively they will almost always have similar but not identical numerical values."
114:
540:
No, a gram atom is exactly the same as a mole of atoms of an element. You can always have a mole of atoms, whether the elements is monatomic or not.
943:
90:
461:
655:
In the section describing common Molar masses, parenthesis are used in an uncommon (at least to the layman) manner, resulting in confusion.
916:
882:
202:
933:
666:
Does the (7) above mean multiplication by 7? Does it mean multiplication by 7th power of 10? Does it mean something else entirely? -
222:
154:
365:
I'm glad you like them, obviously, and I'm flattered. I still have one or two things I would like to do here, such as a discussion of
422:
saying "The SI unit for intercity distance is the meter. However, for historical reasons the kilometer is more commonly used". :-) --
81:
58:
281:
for molecular mass. For most compounds (when using g/mol and u) the numeric values are not exactly equal but differ slightly."
33:
710:
560:
At present we have the definition for an element as "The molar mass of atoms of an element is given by the standard
589:
241:
Msg. to Nick Y: molar mass is the macroscopic mass of roughly 10 molecules, whereas molecular mass is the mass of
564:
of the element multiplied by the molar mass constant". This seems to me to be incorrect for a number of reasons.
451:
can someone explain what the 97(7) thing is for dummies? and why the following line is different, only has (5)
706:
465:
278:
245:
molecule. So, they differ in their units when their numeric values are (almost) equal, which is why I deleted
886:
198:
39:
158:
571:
The definition for a compound is given as "The molar mass of a compound is given by the sum of the standard
477:
381:. I don't think there is too much real dispute over these questions so long as we define the terms clearly.
226:
457:
218:
190:
186:
Mass of a mole is called molar mass we can obtained it by molecular mass by miltiplying it by 0.001kg/mol.
150:
671:
194:
419:
89:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
681:
821:
688:
612:
I'd suggest that the definition for an element ought to use the atomic weight - does anyone agree? --
568:
The dimensions are wrong, since atomic mass is in mass units and the constant has units of mass/mole;
544:
531:
512:
385:
330:
21:
911:
273:
are approximately equal, although they differ in their units, namely g/mol (chemistry) or kg/mol (
581:
802:
667:
638:
485:
503:
redirects here but this is misleading. A Gram atom is only the same as a mole in the case of
901:
781:
598:
523:
500:
211:
817:
684:
617:
541:
527:
508:
382:
327:
418:
unit, but gram is certainly also SI! An analogous example would be to have an article on
73:
52:
905:
847:
838:
832:
370:
270:
927:
374:
313:
250:
178:
798:
634:
481:
434:
398:
350:
297:
813:
777:
378:
725:
613:
843:
603:
504:
423:
366:
86:
705:
Is molar mass and molarity is same? What are the symbols used for both.
751:
919:
890:
871:
851:
825:
806:
785:
714:
692:
642:
621:
547:
535:
516:
489:
469:
437:
426:
401:
388:
353:
333:
316:
300:
253:
230:
181:
162:
147:
the dalton is there, it is just a unit of measurement isn't it?
578:
The reference used to support the definition for an element is
15:
274:
312:
simply use g/mol. Will you make the changes? Thank you, --
85:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
760:
750:
738:
733:
448:M(H) = 1.007 97(7) × 1 g/mol = 1.007 97(7) g/mol
662:(H) = 1.007 97(7) × 1 g/mol = 1.007 97(7) g/mol
177:meant to be read by us mere mortal masses. -
8:
608:which uses atomic weight, not atomic mass.
47:
680:It's a concise notation for uncertainty:
602:
864:2A02:8388:1604:F600:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F
49:
19:
730:
269:"The numeric values of molar mass and
582:"Atomic Weights of the Elements 2005"
99:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Chemistry
7:
79:This article is within the scope of
277:and physics) for molar mass versus
38:It is of interest to the following
939:High-importance Chemistry articles
720:Physical quality not-understanding
14:
476:This is a standard notation for
72:
51:
20:
119:This article has been rated as
944:WikiProject Chemistry articles
172:"What a tangled web we weave!"
102:Template:WikiProject Chemistry
1:
900:Hello, science nerds! Should
891:08:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
786:21:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
93:and see a list of open tasks.
792:"one mole of that substance"
715:20:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
651:Notation needs clarification
556:Atomic mass or atomic weight
548:21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
536:17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
517:16:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
490:16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
470:22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
438:17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
427:10:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
402:17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
389:12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
354:19:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
334:13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
693:17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
237:molar versus molecular mass
960:
934:C-Class Chemistry articles
904:point here or redirect to
590:Pure and Applied Chemistry
182:20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
125:project's importance scale
920:05:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
896:Molecular weight redirect
872:12:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
852:18:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
776:What a bad performance. -
643:17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
231:20:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
118:
67:
46:
622:12:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
317:19:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
301:18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
254:11:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
163:07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
826:12:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
807:12:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
701:Molar mass and molarity
604:10.1351/pac200678112051
478:Measurement uncertainty
631:Standard Atomic Weight
580:Wieser, M. E. (2006),
444:regarding the examples
28:This article is rated
205:) 12:24, 20 July 2006
82:WikiProject Chemistry
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
707:Rupendra singh maura
522:I have restored the
881:What is molar mass
816:into a link now.--
420:intercity distance
105:Chemistry articles
34:content assessment
770:
769:
460:comment added by
221:comment added by
207:
193:comment added by
165:
153:comment added by
139:
138:
135:
134:
131:
130:
951:
915:
902:Molecular weight
731:
728:, showing this:
607:
606:
586:
524:Gram atomic mass
501:Gram atomic mass
496:Gram atomic mass
472:
410:Regarding kg/mol
286:Could be simply:
233:
206:
187:
148:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
959:
958:
954:
953:
952:
950:
949:
948:
924:
923:
909:
898:
879:
859:
836:
794:
763:
741:
722:
703:
653:
597:(11): 2051–66,
584:
579:
558:
498:
462:124.176.100.173
455:
446:
412:
239:
216:
188:
174:
144:
121:High-importance
104:
101:
98:
95:
94:
62:High‑importance
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
957:
955:
947:
946:
941:
936:
926:
925:
912:TARDIS builder
906:Molecular mass
897:
894:
883:110.37.200.117
878:
875:
858:
855:
839:formula weight
835:
833:formula weight
830:
829:
828:
812:I have turned
793:
790:
789:
788:
772:
768:
767:
764:
761:
758:
757:
754:
748:
747:
742:
740:Common symbols
739:
736:
735:
721:
718:
702:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
664:
663:
652:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
610:
609:
576:
573:atomic weights
569:
557:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
497:
494:
493:
492:
445:
442:
441:
440:
411:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
371:molecular mass
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
339:
338:
337:
336:
322:
321:
320:
319:
304:
303:
293:
292:
288:
287:
283:
282:
271:molecular mass
266:
265:
238:
235:
195:59.144.134.240
173:
170:
168:
143:
140:
137:
136:
133:
132:
129:
128:
117:
111:
110:
108:
91:the discussion
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
956:
945:
942:
940:
937:
935:
932:
931:
929:
922:
921:
918:
914:
913:
907:
903:
895:
893:
892:
888:
884:
876:
874:
873:
869:
865:
856:
854:
853:
849:
845:
840:
834:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
765:
759:
755:
753:
749:
746:
743:
737:
732:
729:
727:
719:
717:
716:
712:
708:
700:
694:
690:
686:
682:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
673:
669:
661:
658:
657:
656:
650:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
605:
600:
596:
592:
591:
583:
577:
574:
570:
567:
566:
565:
563:
555:
549:
546:
543:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
452:
449:
443:
439:
436:
431:
430:
429:
428:
425:
421:
417:
409:
403:
400:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
387:
384:
380:
376:
375:atomic weight
372:
368:
355:
352:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
335:
332:
329:
324:
323:
318:
315:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
302:
299:
295:
294:
290:
289:
285:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
262:
258:
257:
256:
255:
252:
248:
244:
236:
234:
232:
228:
224:
223:68.236.121.54
220:
213:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
184:
183:
180:
171:
169:
166:
164:
160:
156:
155:124.182.147.2
152:
141:
126:
122:
116:
113:
112:
109:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
910:
899:
880:
860:
837:
795:
771:
744:
723:
704:
668:JoeOfTheWiki
665:
659:
654:
630:
611:
594:
588:
572:
561:
559:
499:
453:
450:
447:
415:
413:
364:
260:
246:
242:
240:
217:— Preceding
209:
185:
175:
167:
145:
120:
80:
40:WikiProjects
762:Other units
724:I just saw
562:atomic mass
456:—Preceding
379:atomic mass
212:Rifleman 82
189:—Preceding
149:—Preceding
928:Categories
818:RolfSander
734:Molar mass
726:molar mass
685:RolfSander
542:Physchim62
528:Biscuittin
509:Biscuittin
507:elements.
454:Thankyou
383:Physchim62
328:Physchim62
142:molar mass
877:Chemistry
526:article.
505:monatomic
367:osmometry
96:Chemistry
87:chemistry
59:Chemistry
857:Examples
458:unsigned
314:P.wormer
261:possible
251:P.wormer
219:unsigned
203:contribs
191:unsigned
179:mbeychok
151:unsigned
799:Vometia
752:SI unit
635:Nick Y.
482:Nick Y.
435:Nick Y.
433:here.--
399:Nick Y.
351:Nick Y.
298:Nick Y.
247:usually
123:on the
30:C-class
908:? —
778:DePiep
756:kg/mol
545:(talk)
386:(talk)
331:(talk)
36:scale.
766:g/mol
614:RexxS
585:(PDF)
887:talk
868:talk
848:talk
844:Gah4
822:talk
814:mole
803:talk
782:talk
711:talk
689:talk
672:talk
639:talk
633:. --
618:talk
532:talk
513:talk
486:talk
466:talk
424:Itub
416:base
377:and
227:talk
199:talk
159:talk
115:High
599:doi
480:.--
243:one
930::
889:)
870:)
850:)
824:)
805:)
784:)
713:)
691:)
683:--
674:)
641:)
620:)
595:78
593:,
587:,
534:)
515:)
488:)
468:)
373:,
296:--
275:SI
229:)
201:•
161:)
917:★
885:(
866:(
846:(
820:(
801:(
780:(
745:M
709:(
687:(
670:(
660:M
637:(
616:(
601::
530:(
511:(
484:(
464:(
279:u
225:(
197:(
157:(
127:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
