I’ll take Avogadro’s number ðŸ™‚
(6.0221415 Â± 0.0000010) Ã— 10^23

It’s the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) in one mole (a unit of measurement) of a given substance. It came up lots during my university studies and lab practicals, so it’s stuck with me.

Well mia’s pretty close (she keeps stealing all my great chemistry responses :O )

Why isn’t 42 good enough. I guess it comes from a time long ago, even before me.

My favourite number is 7, because unlike the all the other fictional attempts at finding a number that is the answer to everything, 7 IS the answer to everything. I feel a little offended that you need justification, but for those less trained in the art of 7, here it is:

Choose any number and add 9 to it.
Multiply this number by 2.
Subtract 4.
Divide the remainder by 2.
Subtract the number first chosen.

Ha!

I’ll take Avogadro’s number ðŸ™‚

(6.0221415 Â± 0.0000010) Ã— 10^23

It’s the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) in one mole (a unit of measurement) of a given substance. It came up lots during my university studies and lab practicals, so it’s stuck with me.

See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

What’s yours? (and don’t 42 me!)

0Well mia’s pretty close (she keeps stealing all my great chemistry responses :O )

Why isn’t 42 good enough. I guess it comes from a time long ago, even before me.

My favourite number is 7, because unlike the all the other fictional attempts at finding a number that is the answer to everything, 7 IS the answer to everything. I feel a little offended that you need justification, but for those less trained in the art of 7, here it is:

Choose any number and add 9 to it.

Multiply this number by 2.

Subtract 4.

Divide the remainder by 2.

Subtract the number first chosen.

What the answer going to be???

0