Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Faraday, a unit of charge



Yes, I goofed in writing 94898 instead of 1/94803. What
puzzled me, and still does, is 96516 C and 96489 C. Why
do we still have two different references to one Faraday
for physicists and for chemists?

Yes, it is likely to be a coincidence that the numerical factor
in 1/94803 and the number of Coulmb's in one Faraday are
nearly the same (about 1% difference). I was mislead by
this coincidence; otherwise the unit of charge, Faraday,
would not be mentioned.

Other observations made by David are interesting and
instructive but I think they are irrelevant as far as an
elementary physics course is concerned. I think that
various tricks, such as 4*Pi or c=1, can be useful in
advanced courses, but not in the first physics courses.
Ludwik Kowalski