[blokeybloke]

How does “one mole of potassium” differ from “one mole of potassium atoms”? Do we interpret the former differently to the latter? Because aren’t moles counting units like “dozen”? So how exactly does the former make sense?

[DrCMS]

In that example there is no difference but if you'd asked about hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine or iodine instead of potassium there would be a difference.

[blokeybloke]

In that example there is no difference but if you'd asked about hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, chlorine, bromine or iodine instead of potassium there would be a difference.

Thanks for the response. But why is there no difference between the two for potassium? But not for the other elements?

[chenbeier]

Potassium can react

K => K⁺ +e-

One mole potassium metal can be converted to the potassium ion. The amount is the same , also 1 mole.

Hydrogen H₂ can go to the ions in this way:

H₂ => 2 H⁺ + 2 e^-. One mole hydrogen gives 2 mol hydrogen ions.

[mjc123]

Strictly (though this is another thing about which usage can be loose) a mole is an amount of substance, not a number of things. A mole is that amount of substance that contains Avogadro's number N_A of basic units (atoms, molecules, ions etc. as appropriate). 1 mole of potassium contains N_A K atoms; 1 mole of potassium chloride contains N_A K⁺ ions and N_A Cl^- ions. 1 mole of hydrogen gas contains N_A H₂ molecules, and therefore 2N_A H atoms.

[Borek]

One mole potassium metal can be converted to the potassium ion.

Nope, pay attention to wording.

One mole of metallic potassium can be converted to one mole of potassium ions. What you wrote suggests one mole of metallic potassium can be converted to a single cation, which is completely off.

[blokeybloke]

Strictly (though this is another thing about which usage can be loose) a mole is an amount of substance, not a number of things. A mole is that amount of substance that contains Avogadro's number N_A of basic units (atoms, molecules, ions etc. as appropriate). 1 mole of potassium contains N_A K atoms; 1 mole of potassium chloride contains N_A K⁺ ions and N_A Cl^- ions. 1 mole of hydrogen gas contains N_A H₂ molecules, and therefore 2N_A H atoms.

Hey mjc I prefer to think of the mole as an amount of substance as well rather than as a number of things. But then this raises the question of why I see “one mole of water molecules” or “one mole of sodium atoms” constantly in chemistry texts.

[chenbeier]

One mole potassium metal can be converted to the potassium ion.

Nope, pay attention to wording.

One mole of metallic potassium can be converted to one mole of potassium ions. What you wrote suggests one mole of metallic potassium can be converted to a single cation, which is completely off.

Sorry you took my sentence out of the context. Not nice.

I wrote

One mole potassium metal can be converted to the potassium ion. The amount is the same , also 1 mole.

I took attention to the mole.  I am not a native english speaker. If it is a problem of the correct englisch sentences.

[Borek]

Yes, it can be a problem with the translation, but splitting the sentence into two in such a way is confusing.

[-_-zzzz]

How does “one mole of potassium” differ from “one mole of potassium atoms”? Do we interpret the former differently to the latter? Because aren’t moles counting units like “dozen”? So how exactly does the former make sense?

Despite the fact that we can interpret the two sentences differently in this context they mean the same thing because the only constitutive units of potassium are potassium atoms. In the case of diatomic elements however it is different. For example saying “one mole of hydrogen” is ambiguous because do we mean one mole of hydrogen atoms or one mole of hydrogen molecules? Any hypothetical sample of hydrogen can have various constitutive particles so we need to be specific. Hope this helped.