With such limited resources of his time, how did Avogadro come up with his number (the number of molecules in a mole of gas)?
Asked by: Chris Redgate
The short answer is: he didn't!
Avogadro stated the theory that equal volumes of gases at the same temperature and pressure
contained equal numbers of molecules, being the first to tease out the discrepancy between
molecules and atoms. Unfortunately no one listened to him (probably because he was going
against the ideas of one of the most revered proto-chemists of his day, Dalton) Avogadro
died before anyone looked at his paper and saw the wisdom in his ideas.
In any case, someone had to come up with the number of particles in these volumes of gas
Avogadro was talking about. Loschmidt, Maxwell, and Kelvin made early estimates of how
many molecules could be found in a given volume of gas at standard temp and pressure based
on estimates of molecular diameters, the mean free path of a molecule according to the
kinetic theory of gases, and some fancy calculation.
Plank, Einstein, Millikan and Perrin all tried to use the new mathematical tools presented
by quantum theory to refine estimates of how many molecules are in a given volume of gas
early in the 20th century. In the meantime, the actual number searched for shifted to the
number of oxygen atoms in 16 grams of O, since it was known that Oxygen was 16 times
heavier than hydrogen (just lucky that they were both diatomic!) Once atomic structure
came to be known, the value sought was understood to be the number of times 1 atomic mass
unit can be divided into one gram. (this is often stated as the number of protons in one
gram, but 1 AMU is actually closer the mass of 1 proton plus one half of an electron, or
1/12 the mass of an atom of C-12)
This number was called 'Avogadro's Number' by Perrin, who wished to honor the man who never
received recognition during his life for his substantial contributions to early chemistry.
You can read more about Avogadro and Avogadro's Number at:
Answered by: Rob Landolfi, Science Teacher, Washington, DC
'For the sake of persons of ... different types, scientific truth should be presented in different forms, and should be regarded as equally scientific, whether it appears in the robust form and the vivid coloring of a physical illustration, or in the tenuity and paleness of a symbolic expression.'