Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Aargh, chemistry!

Expand Messages
  • Simon Vollam
    Morning list, I m translating a chemistry paper for a conference, and am being unpleasantly reminded of how much I have forgotten since I hung up my lab coat
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Morning list,

      I'm translating a chemistry paper for a conference, and am being
      unpleasantly reminded of how much I have forgotten since I hung up my
      lab coat for the last time some five years ago.

      I would welcome your informed opinions on how to translate "mnozstvi"
      in the following context:

      "Mnozstvi komponent jsou uvadena v hmotnostni jednotkach v mg/g
      zkouseneho vzorku."

      It sounds like "yields" to me. Can anyone confirm or correct this?


      Also, I seem to be unable to access the graphs in the document. This
      maybe because I am using an old version of Word. If anyone with Word
      2000 is willing to spend 5 minutes today helping me to confirm or
      refute this theory, please contact me off-list at vollams@....

      Thanks a lot

      Simon
    • karel6005@hotmail.com
      Hello Simon, It sounds rather like quantities to me. Chemical dictionary of SNTL of 1989 gives vytezek for yield . BR Karel ... translate mnozstvi
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Simon,

        It sounds rather like "quantities" to me. Chemical dictionary of SNTL
        of 1989 gives "vytezek" for "yield".

        BR

        Karel


        --- In Czechlist@y..., "Simon Vollam" <simon.vollam@c...> wrote:

        > I would welcome your informed opinions on how to
        translate "mnozstvi"
        > in the following context:
        >
        > "Mnozstvi komponent jsou uvadena v hmotnostni jednotkach v mg/g
        > zkouseneho vzorku."
        >
        > It sounds like "yields" to me. Can anyone confirm or correct this?
      • Simon Vollam
        Dear list, I d like to publicly thank Rachel for saving my graphs in time for a publication deadline. Happy cucumber season to you all (and especially to R.),
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear list,

          I'd like to publicly thank Rachel for saving my graphs in time for a
          publication deadline.

          Happy cucumber season to you all (and especially to R.),

          Simon
        • Dusan Papousek
          Dear Simon, do not use yield in this context, yield is used in chemistry in the following context : yield of a chemical reaction = vytezek chemicke
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Simon,
            do not use "yield" in this context, "yield" is used in chemistry in the
            following context : "yield of a chemical reaction = vytezek chemicke reakce"
            (see also the comment from Karel). In your context, it's better to use
            "amount", although "quantity" is basically correct but see further.
            According to the SNTL Czech-English Chemical Dictionary: mnozstvi = amount,
            quantity, e.g. adsorbed amount, total amount, overall amount, indicator
            amount, trace amount (stopove mnozstvi). "Quantity" is used for "velicina"
            both in chemistry and physics or in technological disciplines : A quantity
            is a technical term for things that can be measured, such as length, mass
            and time. For example, when translating "Fyzikalni veliciny, ktere
            charakterisuji stav systemu...", you should say "Physical quantities that
            characterize the state of a system..." and the term "quantity" is the only
            one you can use here.
            I would not use "fraction" for "mnozstvi" because "fraction" means "podil",
            e.g. in chemistry is frequently used in the context "destilacni podil" in
            the sense "part of something". However, it's tempting to use the term
            "fraction" in your context because of this unhappy "unit" mg/g.
            Nevertheless, I would translate your sentence as "The amount of components
            is given in mass units in mg/g of the tested sample", if it means that the
            amount of components was given in mg (miligrams) and related to the amount
            of the tested sample in g (grams).


            D.P.
            Previous message:

            Simon the Chemist wrote:

            I would welcome your informed opinions on how to translate "mnozstvi"
            in the following context:

            "Mnozstvi komponent jsou uvadena v hmotnostni jednotkach v mg/g
            zkouseneho vzorku."

            It sounds like "yields" to me. Can anyone confirm or correct this?
          • Tony Long
            Perfect. Couldn t have said it better meself, so I didn t. Tony Whose first-ever real job was mixing krtek-perfect solutions for unappreciative M.Sc. students.
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Perfect. Couldn't have said it better meself, so I didn't.

              Tony
              Whose first-ever real job was mixing krtek-perfect solutions for unappreciative M.Sc. students.
              Aargh, chemistry!


              Dear Simon,
              do not use "yield" in this context, "yield" is used in chemistry in the
              following context : "yield of a chemical reaction = vytezek chemicke reakce"
              (see also the comment from Karel). In your context, it's better to use
              "amount", although "quantity" is basically correct but see further.
              According to the SNTL Czech-English Chemical Dictionary: mnozstvi = amount,
              quantity, e.g. adsorbed amount, total amount, overall amount, indicator
              amount, trace amount (stopove mnozstvi). "Quantity" is used for "velicina"
              both in chemistry and physics or in technological disciplines : A quantity
              is a technical term for things that can be measured, such as length, mass
              and time. For example, when translating "Fyzikalni veliciny, ktere
              charakterisuji stav systemu...", you should say "Physical quantities that
              characterize the state of a system..." and the term "quantity" is the only
              one you can use here.
              I would not use "fraction" for "mnozstvi" because "fraction" means "podil",
              e.g. in chemistry is frequently used in the context "destilacni podil" in
              the sense "part of something". However, it's tempting to use the term
              "fraction" in your context because of this unhappy "unit" mg/g.
              Nevertheless, I would translate your sentence as "The amount of components
              is given in mass units in mg/g of the tested sample", if it means that the
              amount of components was given in mg (miligrams) and related to the amount
              of the tested sample in g (grams).


              D.P.
              Previous message:

              Simon the Chemist wrote:

              I would welcome your informed opinions on how to translate "mnozstvi"
              in the following context:

              "Mnozstvi komponent jsou uvadena v hmotnostni jednotkach v mg/g
              zkouseneho vzorku."

              It sounds like "yields" to me. Can anyone confirm or correct this?





              Czechlist: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
              Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • padamek@mbox.dkm.cz
              Docela by mne zajimalo, jestli se v anglictine ujalo vedecky spravnejsi mass , nebo jestli chemici dodnes pouzivaji beznejsi weight . Byl jsem zvykly
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Docela by mne zajimalo, jestli se v anglictine ujalo vedecky
                spravnejsi "mass", nebo jestli chemici dodnes pouzivaji
                beznejsi "weight". Byl jsem zvykly prekladat "hmotnost" jako "weight"
                (napriklad "wt.%") ale trebas je to uz dnes zastarale. (Rachel to asi
                bude vedet.)
                S pozdravem Petr
                --- In Czechlist@y..., "Dusan Papousek" <Papousek@m...> wrote:
                > > Nevertheless, I would translate your sentence as "The amount of
                components
                > is given in mass units in mg/g of the tested sample",
              • Simon Vollam
                Morning List, Thanks for all your helpful comments and suggestions. It turns out - as I expected - that the author was referring to the mass of a particular
                Message 7 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Morning List,

                  Thanks for all your helpful comments and suggestions.

                  It turns out - as I expected - that the author was referring to the
                  mass of a particular gas produced by burning a known amount of
                  material (for example, mg of HCN per g of polyurethane foam). This is
                  commonly referred to in combustion science as the yield. I agree that
                  it is not a yield in the normal chemistry context, i.e. the amount of
                  a substance actually produced in a chemical reaction relative to the
                  amount predicted theoretically from the reaction stoichiometry. But
                  it's a similar concept.

                  The author tells me that he wished to stress the fact that it was a
                  mass of gas, and not the volume concentration in air. However, I
                  wonder whether "vytezek" has a narrower scientific meaning in Czech
                  than "yield" does in English. BTW I agree that "amount" is more
                  appropriate than "quantity" in this context.

                  To answer the mass-vs-weight query, I was always taught that,
                  strictly speaking, mass is measured in grammes whereas weight (being
                  a force) is measured in Newtons. A man on the moon, for example,
                  weighs much less than on earth, but his mass is the same regardless
                  of location (relativistic considerations aside).

                  On the other hand, strictly speaking one should say "ethanol", not
                  "ethyl alcohol", but who cares? Not many chemists do their
                  experiments extraterrestrially, and one often sees "weight" used in
                  scientific papers as a synonym for mass, especially outside physics.

                  Enough, enough. I'm an economist now.

                  Thanks again,

                  Simon
                • Rachel Thompson
                  ... Hi Petr, In normal speech, weight is still the commoner way of expressing what is more correctly termed mass. But I ve never used it as an equivalent for
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > Docela by mne zajimalo, jestli se v anglictine ujalo vedecky
                    > spravnejsi "mass", nebo jestli chemici dodnes pouzivaji
                    > beznejsi "weight". Byl jsem zvykly prekladat "hmotnost" jako "weight"
                    > (napriklad "wt.%") ale trebas je to uz dnes zastarale. (Rachel to asi
                    > bude vedet.)

                    Hi Petr,

                    In normal speech, weight is still the commoner way of expressing what is
                    more correctly termed mass. But I've never used it as an equivalent for
                    mass in a chemical text. Until now, I'd have said that that usage was
                    out of date, but checking for "weight percent" on Google does bring up
                    14,000 hits, so I guess it is still used (perhaps especially in
                    America). We always used percentage mass in Britain.

                    Rachel
                  • Simon Vollam
                    ... We always used percentage mass in Britain. I m not sure we always did. Things are much more standardised now, though. Simon
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Czechlist@y..., "Rachel Thompson" <rachel.thompson@s...> wrote:
                      We always used percentage mass in Britain.



                      I'm not sure we always did. Things are much more standardised now,
                      though.

                      Simon
                    • Rachel Thompson
                      ... Then I suppose it must be a very recent standardisation -- you re not that much older than me, are you? By the time we started doing percentage mass
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > I'm not sure we always did. Things are much more standardised now,
                        > though.

                        Then I suppose it must be a very recent standardisation -- you're not
                        that much older than me, are you? By the time we started doing
                        percentage mass calculations at A-level, everything was "mass" in all
                        the course literature, and I'd never heard of this "weight percent"
                        until I looked it up this morning.

                        But to Petr and others who are wondering what to use, I'd suggest that
                        mass is probably the safer bet, since it is more strictly correct.
                        Would you go along with that?

                        Rachel
                      • Simon Vollam
                        ... not ... No, only a couple of months older, I would estimate. Seriously, though, I think the SI/IUPAC standardisation efforts have only recently begun to
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Czechlist@y..., "Rachel Thompson" <rachel.thompson@s...> wrote:
                          > > I'm not sure we always did. Things are much more standardised now,
                          > > though.
                          >
                          > Then I suppose it must be a very recent standardisation -- you're
                          not
                          > that much older than me, are you?

                          No, only a couple of months older, I would estimate. Seriously,
                          though, I think the SI/IUPAC standardisation efforts have only
                          recently begun to bite. When I was studying chemistry in the late
                          1980s, many of the older professors got decided uppity when we
                          corrected their "antiquated" terminology.

                          Just out of interest,were you taught to use "molecular mass" or
                          "molecular weight"?

                          > But to Petr and others who are wondering what to use, I'd suggest
                          that
                          > mass is probably the safer bet, since it is more strictly correct.
                          > Would you go along with that?

                          Yes indeed, as a rule of thumb. But don't be too surprised if some
                          grey-haired chemist tries to correct you!

                          Simon
                        • Rachel Thompson
                          ... Mass. We had some confusion between molar mass and molecular mass , but it was always mass, not weight. Rachel
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > Just out of interest,were you taught to use "molecular mass" or
                            > "molecular weight"?

                            Mass. We had some confusion between "molar mass" and "molecular mass",
                            but it was always mass, not weight.

                            Rachel
                          • Simon Vollam
                            ... mass , ... Interesting. Molecular mass sounds quite alien to me, although I ve nothing against it. It seems those few short months between us have seen
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jul 2, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In Czechlist@y..., "Rachel Thompson" <rachel.thompson@s...> wrote:
                              > > Just out of interest,were you taught to use "molecular mass" or
                              > > "molecular weight"?
                              >
                              > Mass. We had some confusion between "molar mass" and "molecular
                              mass",
                              > but it was always mass, not weight.
                              >
                              > Rachel

                              Interesting. Molecular mass sounds quite alien to me, although I've
                              nothing against it. It seems those few short months between us have
                              seen significant changes.

                              I suggest that anyone wishing to find out the currently approved
                              nomenclature visit the IUPAC site
                              http://www.iupac.org/reports/1993/homann/index.html

                              BTW this gives both molecular mass and molecular weight (mind you, it
                              was last updated in 1993 - what have they been doing since then?)

                              Simon, enjoying this trip down (failing-)memory lane
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.