Re[3]: SI Units Stumper

["William Kolb" <William_Kolb_at_SETA@mail.hq.faa.gov>]

Scott makes a good point.  If you could count a million atoms a second, you need
to have started around the time the universe began to have the answer by now.

bill
bkolb@arinc.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: SI Units Stumper
From:    radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at smtpgate
Date:    1/17/97  6:22 AM

     Everything is life is an approximation.  Look at calculus, we just 
     approximate things to acceptable accuracy.  Look at all of the models 
     used for estimating fluxes or mechanical calcs for determining safety 
     margins for equipment.  The list goes on.
     
     The 6.02 x 10^23 estimate must be somewhat reasonable, because many of 
     the calculations(approximations) based on that number seem to be 
     pretty reasonable.
     
     I would also think that they could indeed come very close in 
     determining the actual number of atoms in a mole.  We can count the 
     individual atoms on a surface with electron-tunnelling microscopes and 
     go from there.
     
     Sorry, I missed the original post, but I just couldn't resist to reply 
     to this reply.
     
     
     Sincerely and hastily written,
     Glen Vickers
     brzgv@ccmail.ceco.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: SI Units Stumper
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at INTERNET
Date:    1/17/97 3:05 AM


It could work that way if there was a convenient way to count 6.02 x 
10^23 atom, or 6.02 x 10^23 of anything.
-- 
**************************
Scott B. Webb, RSO
Colorado State University
Environmental Health Serv
Fort Collins, CO 80523-6021
970-491-4835 F:970-491-4804
swebb@lamar.colostate.edu
**************************