Talk:Mole (unit)

"Mole(unit)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mole(unit) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 9 § Mole(unit) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors: the issue is the lack of a space between "Mole" and "(unit)" in the redirect source. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Some common misspellings of titles are used as redirects for convenience. I don't know that there is a rule about that. In the case of the space, seems to me that either all such articles should have redirects, or none. Gah4 (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion this is not at all a common misspelling and it should not exist. Normal users won't search for "Mole(unit)" and internal wikilinks that use Mole(unit) will be red and can be fixed. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What is that image trying to say?

Recently this image was added

• Mass versus moles of iron vs gold.svg

It has some boxes and circles with Fe and Au labels. What is it trying to tell us? @VectorVoyager Johnjbarton (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually made it for Molar mass page which I think is quite fitting there. It tells that 2 samples of 2 different elements for the same amount of mass that differ in molar mass have different number of moles in the same mass (m/M). I can take it off from this page as its not specifically a diagram to make people understand moles but that it can stay in the molar mass page if there is no errors. I am 100% open for suggestions for improvement though. VectorVoyager (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@VectorVoyager ok thanks. the image has two cylinders and now I notice that they have different sizes. I suppose this much would be clearer to me if they were side by side with text like "same mass, different volume". but I'm not sure how to connect that to the topic. it's just to imagine a visual that works for numbers and mass without involving density. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: hi, I made a new depiction for this page (Mole carbon-12 diagram.svg). I think something like this is more fitting for the page. Its very important that the visitors understand diagrams used on the Wiki, so I am open for suggestions to improve that previous one that is currently present on molar mass page. How can I make it more understandable in a visual way? Thanks. VectorVoyager (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well you picked a tough assignment ;-)

My suggestions for this version:

1. Move the 12 grams of ¹²C on to the Mole side
2. Remove the Avogadro (too much)
3. Rather than the ambiguous x602 sextillion, just write 602 sextillion Carbon atoms.

That much illustrates "Mole" but does not pinpoint "Mole (unit)".

For "Mole (unit)" maybe an image with seemingly many items and the amount in Mole? The only thing one need to get a across is that the unit is for counting items and the scale is ridiculously large.

HTH Johnjbarton (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I have implemented the first and third suggestions that you have written, but I think stating that the accepted exact form is Avogadro constant is intuitive for the reader to understand the connection between NA and moles. VectorVoyager (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

mol kept me from Chemistry

I found the concept of calling some arbitrary number a 'mol' of something exceedingly confusing when I was confronted with it at school. And as it is a basic concept, I got bad grades in my first test. Turns out, I was right, and there are people sharing my criticism. If anyone out there works in curriculum design: Please just leave out this nonsensical non-unit and get into the interesting stuff. Molar masses can be discussed way later, in advanced studies. Thank you. --2A01:C23:5DB9:4A00:B905:825E:E1B0:1A05 (talk) 2A01:C23:5DB9:4A00:B905:825E:E1B0:1A05 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss curriculum design. Pradyung (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Amount is (arguably) the most basic quantity

From time to time, we see publications questioning the need for some of the base quantities of the SI. For example, time, length, mass, and electric charge are always considered fundamental; and recently, angle has been proposed to be added to that list. But temperature is just a convenient way of dealing with (thermal) energy, and could be abandoned, along with its unit. Luminous intensity can be dealt with in other ways. And, in particular for the subject of this Wikipedia article (the unit mole), amount (of a substance) is often claimed to be unnecessary—because we could equally as well deal just with the (dimensionless) number of entities. But "amount" (not to be confused with "mass" or "volume", for which the name "amount" is often used, incorrectly), being an aggregate of a number of entities, is arguably the most fundamental of all physical quantities. If there were no entities (atoms, molecules, photons, &c.) there would be no galaxies, stars, planets, substances, . . . , or sentient beings (and time, length, mass, electric charge, angle—and number—would have no "meaning", and therefore, would not "exist"). For this reason, it is obviously critically important that amount and its macroscopic unit, the mole, be thoroughly understood. Currently, this is one of the two most poorly understood concepts in the STEM curriculum. [The other is anything to do with the now-you-see-me-now-you-don't radian (and its cousin, the steradian)]. Boppennoppy (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Boppennoppy Please read WP:NOTFORUM, "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles" Johnjbarton (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)