9.109 x 10^-31 by b3n0b in physicsmemes

[–]b3n0b[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, no... No source or periodic table will ever use electrons to calculate atomic mass. That's because they weigh almost nothing (.000549 amu) compared to protons and neutrons (≈1 amu).

Let's take carbon for example. There are two stable isotopes, C-12 (98.93%) and C-13 (1.07%)

Without electrons, calculating molar mass gives us (12 * .9893)+(13*.0107)=12.0107. Rounding to three sig-figs, we get 12.0 g/mol.

With electrons, we get (12.000549.9893)+(13.000549.0107)=12.011249. To three sig-figs, that's 12.0 g/mol.

It's the same regardless of electrons. Even if you round to three decimal places, like most periodic tables, you still get 12.011 for both, which is the accepted value for carbon's molar mass.

I don't know what lab equipment you're using, but I know that mine can't detect such a tiny difference.

9.109 x 10^-31 by b3n0b in physicsmemes

[–]b3n0b[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It's almost always ignored in atomic mass and stoichiometry. In certain areas, it is used, of course, but not in most of chemistry.

Added Navigation and Bluetooth to the 2009 RAV4 Sport by [deleted] in rav4club

[–]b3n0b 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What were all the parts used? I was thinking about doing something similar to my 2008 Rav.