Thanks for catching the typo on the .263 vs the .283 commonly used in MacInnis book or the .2857 number that some use today.
Any more suggestions?
Tom V.
Note to members, Constants are constantly being redefined.
Most of the Historical ones like the MOLE were redefined again this year.
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/...fined-for-2019
So don't worry too much about someone posting a number as being gospel for eternity, it does not work that way in engineering.
2019 redefinition of the SI base units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_r...ase_units#Mole
So take numbers for the most part as a close approximation in formulas.
Good info, John, in my case a typo, in your case you need to do more reading as your number is not absolute either by any means.
Tom V.