NEW - Any scientists/mathmaticians? Quick question

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- NEW - Any scientists/mathmaticians? Quick question
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Posted by Jackson on Dec-05-2008 16:38:

NEW - Any scientists/mathmaticians? Quick question

I've got a serious mental block and cant work this out.

What does ml-1 equal? I am not too bad with scientific notation since we've just come onto it. But I can't work it out...would it be nanolitres? centilitres?

Posted by Azz3D on Dec-05-2008 16:43:

1/ml ??

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 16:46:

mL is just 10^-3 liters and you don't move to another prefix until you get to 10^-6 which is micro, and then nano is 10^-9. So neither you just call it 0.1 milliliters.

Posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY on Dec-05-2008 16:46:

Re: Any scientists/mathmaticians? Quick question

quote:
Originally posted by Jackson
I've got a serious mental block and cant work this out.

What does ml-1 equal? I am not too bad with scientific notation since we've just come onto it. But I can't work it out...would it be nanolitres? centilitres?

possibly micro liters, but I can't tell what you're trying to post. more info mate.

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 16:47:

Re: Re: Any scientists/mathmaticians? Quick question

quote:
Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY
possibly micro liters, but I can't tell what you're trying to post. more info mate.

no micro is 10^-6 liters he's only going 10^-4.

Posted by Jackson on Dec-05-2008 16:51:

Basically im working out total cell count for a liquid culture of S. cerevisiae

I need to work out Cell per ml of original culture, formatted in cells ml^-1.

Number of cells per mm^3 is 7,500.

In class I worked out the answer for cells per ml of original culture as 7.5x10^7 ml^-1...but i'm not sure how I got to that answer.

EDIT: Bear in mind that 1000mm^3 = 1ml

Posted by SkyHigh on Dec-05-2008 16:53:

micro < gigantor

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 16:53:

1 CC = 1 mL ahh you already got that on the edit

Posted by dimadelux on Dec-05-2008 16:54:

scientists/mathmaticians visit the COR?

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 16:55:

quote:
Originally posted by dimadelux
scientists/mathmaticians visit the COR?

Only when I'm out of work.

Posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY on Dec-05-2008 16:58:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Only when I'm out of work.

if memory serves right, were u the one working with your chem professor on a research project?

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 17:01:

quote:
Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY
if memory serves right, were u the one working with your chem professor on a research project?

Yes but he left the department to work in private industry so right now I'm out of work.

Posted by Jackson on Dec-05-2008 17:01:

Ahhh just figured it out. I forgot we made a 10^-1 dilution of the original culture.

So its 7,500 cells per mm^3
Multiply that by 1000 to convert it into ml = 7.5x10^6
and Multiply that by 10 to make it equal to the original dilution so 7.5x10^7ml

Hmmm, i'm still stuck with the ^-1

Posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY on Dec-05-2008 17:04:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
Yes but he left the department to work in private industry so right now I'm out of work.

ahhh damn sorry to hear bro. I guess the money was too good for him to pass up. What are you looking to get into?

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 17:05:

If you did a 10^-1 dilution you need to multiply by .1 not by 10.

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 17:05:

quote:
Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY
ahhh damn sorry to hear bro. I guess the money was too good for him to pass up. What are you looking to get into?

software startups. I would have left too. He was one of the only professors they had teaching physical chemistry which is ranked as the most difficult one year course out of the entire undergrad curriculum. It was as tough on him as it was on us.

Posted by Jackson on Dec-05-2008 17:07:

why .1?
10^-1 is 10% strength of original. So multiplying by 10 will bring it back to its original strength.

As a side note...Is the rest of the CORe keeping up with this?

Posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY on Dec-05-2008 17:08:

quote:
Originally posted by Zild
software startups I would have left too. He was one of the only professors they had teaching physical chemistry which is ranked as the most difficult one year course out of the entire undergrad curriculum. It was as tough on him as it was on us.

Good deal. It's tough to get anywhere in science w/o a phd anymore, and the money is usually garbage to boot.

Posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY on Dec-05-2008 17:10:

Posted by Jackson on Dec-05-2008 17:13:

I fucking hate it...but sadly its a compulsory module in Aquatic Zoology. Oh well, module ends at the end of Jan.

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 17:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Jackson
why .1?
10^-1 is 10% strength of original. So multiplying by 10 will bring it back to its original strength.

As a side note...Is the rest of the CORe keeping up with this?

i'm getting confused here hold on let me go back to the original question.

is the 7500 per cubic mm with or without the dilution?

Keeping in mind that one cubic cm = 1ml you can convert from cubic mm to mL very easily.

Posted by Jackson on Dec-05-2008 17:15:

Number of yeast cells is 7500mm^3 with the dilution at 10^-1

Cheers for your help with this mate

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 17:16:

ohh ok then you are looking for the number of cells in the original sample without the dilution? Yeah you're right you multiply by 10.

Posted by Jackson on Dec-05-2008 17:19:

Cool.
So i've worked that out I THINK as 7.5x10^7ml (I think) and its asking for ml^-1....im confused.

This was all overseen by my professor, and he said my result was right...but I just dont know how he got there or if he made a slight mistake.

Posted by Zild on Dec-05-2008 17:30:

It sounds right to me. You can express that answer in cells per ml^-1 which will be 7.5x10^6 cells/ml^-1. But it seems like you are doing it the right way and you have the right answer.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »