Clark wrote:
A minor nitpick on a previous post from Jim:

It was stated that n/V was equal to density.

A reasonable nit, but I was careful enough to say it was "a" density, not
"the" density. My words we "But n/V is just a density!"

While the stated equality
isn't, the jist of what was said was ok. The equality would be

(Mass/Molecular Weight)/V = density

Since the molecular weight of air is a constant it can be combined
with the other constant in the ideal gas law when used for atmospheric
calcs.

Thanks for the nit pick and clarification.

Nowadays I sometimes qualify things that don't need qualification, and fail
to qualify things I should. For example, you might find me stating "It is
my understanding that 1 + 1 = 2 for most values of 1 and 2," rather than
the unequivical "1 + 1 = 2". Otherwise somebody will go:

"Bzzzzt! Wrong! Try again. 1 + 1 = 3. And here's the proof...."

And by gosh the proof would look valid. Or they'd direct me to a .gov web
page where it states that 1 + 1 = 3. And since I like to use as
"authoritative" web sites as I can find to support my own assertions, and I
consider .gov sites reasonably authoritative, I'd be forced to admit my
ignorance and stupidity for making such an unqualified assertion. It
becomes tiring admitting to ignorance and stupidity too often (at least it
is for me!), and I suspect that after a while the only people left reading
my posts are those who are equally ignorant and stupid. At that point I
think my posting becomes futile/redundant since my ignorance and stupidity
has reached equilibrium with the equally ignorant and stupid readers of my
posts.

What, me ramble?