Talk:Gas constant

Random mention of the Planck scale
The section "Relationship with the Boltzmann constant" for some reason shows a formula relating the Boltzmann constant to the Planck scale. I don't think this should be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzer99 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"Planck molar heat capacity" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Planck molar heat capacity. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"Planck molar specific heat capacity" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Planck molar specific heat capacity. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"unit" vs. "units" discussion
, thank you for your of only that which you disagreed with. And from your edit comment, I assume that you have no issue with referring to "the unit of R" rather than what some people insist on: "the units of R". Which leaves only the few changes that you reversed. I have no big issue here (that is, I'm happy to leave this to your preference), but I am unsure of what you are referring to in your edit comment, and would like your take on my interpretation of where we differ: As I indicated, I'm not concerned, just interested in your take upon review. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A heading ("Unit[s]") of a column generally describes each entry, not the column as a whole, and "J⋅K−1⋅mol−1", for example, is a single (albeit compound) unit, not multiple units. This applies for both tables.
 * "energy per temperature increment per amount of substance" is a single quantity that would normally have a unit, when expressed (e.g., J⋅K−1⋅mol−1 such a quantity). If this sentence is revised to read "expressed in the units of energy, temperature increment and amount of substance", the plural "units" would apply, but this loses specificity of meaning.
 * "The gas constant is expressed in the same unit[s] as are molar entropy and molar heat capacity": Here my interpretation is that we are referring to the unit of the gas constant, hence "unit" rather than "units". There is some ambiguity here, but if we are referring to the base units in terms of which the unit of the gas constant is expressed, the sentence says very little (all products of powers of three base units gives an infinite array of inequivalent units that match this description).
 * "Note the use of kilomole units" vs. "Note the use of the kilomole unit": The kilomole is a unit (singular). What would the plural apply to?  There is only one of these in the expression.
 * Thanks for your reasoning, I’ve thought about it and you are probably correct about most of the unit vs. units wording. I agree with you that R is a singular unit and that does extend to the compound unit(s) being used to define it (the latter I didn’t realize at the time of the edit). With regards to the table column headings, I’m fine with "Unit" being the label; "Values of R" should also be changed to singular to be consistent. I think we disagree on what "unit" means in the context of "It is...expressed in [units/a unit] of energy per temperature increment per amount of substance": a phrase "x units of energy per temperature increment per amount of substance" has an interchangeable meaning to, for example, "8.314 Joules per Kelvin per Mole"; in other words, "units of energy" is (in my opinion) the more general equivalent to the specific unit used in plural form (Joules in this example). I think changing the "in" to "as" might clear up the ambiguity in that case. With "The gas constant is expressed in the same unit[s] as are molar entropy and molar heat capacity", I believe your interpretation is correct: singular is correct in that case. The phrase "kilomole units" I agree should be changed, either to your "the kilomole unit" or to "kilomoles"; I have no preference between the two. Coolclawcat (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have adjusted this according to where we seem to have agreement.  On my second bullet, the correct construction is not as clear and the plural form probably seems more natural to most; I see how you are reading it.  So short of rephrasing it to avoid this issue entirely, I'm leaving that case as you left it.  172.82.46.195 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

R in bold?
Some textbooks print R in bold font, some in non bold. What is correct? Pokyrek (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The standard ISO 80000-1 determines this nowadays. Quantities are denoted by italic font. Bold is only for vector quantities Jähmefyysikko (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)