THE BINARY MOLE 

Abstract

Avogadro’s number should reflect its relationship to radioactivity and thus be a power of 2.  

Scientists strive for accuracy, but often mistake precision for it. They look for the ninth or tenth decimal place of Avogadro's number ─ relating it to the arbitrarily defined mass of a chunk of metal in France . Better that they should base it on the logic that follows from their scientific studies. The number must be an integer and, from radioactive decay, it must be a multiple of 2 to end with an integer of 1. To minimize any change in the gram, Avogadro's number should be defined as  
N_o = 2⁷⁹ = 604 462 909 807 314 587 353 088 = 6.0446 x 10²³  
This establishes Avogadro's number as unarguably accurate and precise to 24 digits! Actually, the accuracy and precision are infinite, as the number is an integer. Attention should be turned to establishing the mass of that chunk of metal and worrying about its precision — not the reverse. Better to have one value established with certainty based on scientific logic than have all uncertain.
   
Standards bodies and precious metals purveyors have howled at any change in the specification of the gram and Troy ounce, but chemists and physicists should lead the way for objectivity. The change to the binary value of Avogrado’s number is only 0.36%. How would it feel to know the mass of a carbon-6 atom to the 23^rd decimal place? Quite the standard — as long as the gram-mole value of ⁶C remains 6! The hard sciences deserve to feel so solid.

 Click for author's home page