[alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!

[David Ashcraft]

I pulled this definition off the internet:
Molar concentration or molarity is most commonly in units of moles of  
solute per liter of solution. For use in broader applications, it is  
defined as amount of solute per unit volume of solution, or per unit  
volume available to the species, represented by lowercase c:[2]

Here, n is the amount of the solute in moles,[1] N is the number of  
molecules present in the volume V (in litres), the ratio N/V is the  
number concentration C, and NA is the Avogadro constant, approximately  
6.023 × 1023 mol−1.
Or more simply: 1 molar = 1 M = 1 mole/litre.

I do not have a background in chemistry and have no idea what this  
means.  Several posts have been made that state how easy it is to  
understand (dumb me), I have no idea.  Surely someone could share the  
knowledge and explain simply so we all could understand.
At the start of this I didn't care, but now feel like I need to know.
Thanks,
David

On Jul 29, 2010, at 12:56 AM, Loris Medici wrote:

> First, thanks to all involved (in this specific discussion) for the  
> high
> quality discussion & style. A special thanks to Diana for kindly  
> taking "the
> hard route" of expressing her thoughts / feelings clearly in an  
> elaborate
> way, instead of taking the "easy way" of making shallow comments  
> (which some
> were ornated with derogatory adjectives) - masquerading as jokes...
>
> Alberto has my point; what I was talking about wasn't "rocket  
> science"(!)
> (and most importantly, I definitely wasn't saying it's the one and  
> only /
> correct way of doing it!)... If you can use the four basic arithmetic
> operators, you can also do what I've described. We have internet  
> now; one
> can easily find the formula of the compounds, learn about their  
> variants,
> find out their molecular masses, ... and even let the computer balance
> simple chemical reactions!
>
> Diana, in teaching, actually almost all is about "how to present the
> subject", not "the subject" - especially for this kind of very simple
> (really!) stuff which is definitely "within the reach of any normal  
> person
> with a normal (highschool?) education". Plus, I really don't like  
> the idea
> of letting people play which chemicals w/o learning something  
> (absolute
> minimum) about them...
>
> Thanks much again & Regards,
> Loris.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org On  
> Behalf Of
> Alberto Novo
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:16 AM
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: DESICCATE! DESICCATE! DANCE TO THE MUSIC!
>
>>> ...
>>> But I digress. My point is-- I agree with you.  What made you  
>>> think I
>>> didn't?   Just because I said I would have been turned off by all  
>>> that
>>> chemistry in a beginning alt photo class/photography class?  Well, I
>>> would have been.  And I personally wouldn't teach a beginning  
>>> printing
>>> class that way, either.
>>
>> Diana,
>> me too (perhaps not being an English mothertongue) had the feeling  
>> that
>> in your post you were in disagreement with the argumentations about
>> chemistry and math. I would add that the scientific concepts used  
>> in those
>> discussions were very simple, and I learned them when I was 12 years
>> old (proportions) and 15 (molarity and >>stoichiometry). I suppose  
>> that
>> others should have learned the same things at more or less my same  
>> age,
>> and should be known like the basic grammar, history and literature.
>> ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>