[Jekel0000]

See that I worked out the math for Avogadro's Number and found that it was off by a product of 3. I tried to use a coefficient to find the actual values for other atoms besides the Carbon 12 atom, but then I realized that I was wasting my time because most of the atoms on the periodic table are missing isotopes generally speaking lithium has 3protons with 4 neutrons, Beryllium has 4 protons with 5 neutrons, Boron has 5 protons with 6 neutrons....Carbon has 6 and 6....

[Jekel0000]

If you look at the example you will see that the value that 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons multiplied by 12 grams of carbon is equal to

2.0072378x10^-23 atoms...
not
6.02197134 something....
the value is off by a product of 3...

[Borek]

No idea what you are doing. You are multiplying some numbers, dropping units to make it impossible to take track of what you are calculating, then you multiply by 3 to get some number that is completely backward (mole contains 6.02×10²³, not 10^-23 entities). Then you use this number to make some conclusions. I bet you tried to calculate number of atoms by calculating mass of a single atom and the finding how many atoms of a given mass are present in 12 g of carbons. Trick is, to do so you should divide, not multiply.

There is also a very minor mistake - mass of an atom is not equal sum of masses of the components (google for binding energy). But it is not the main source of your problems.

[Jekel0000]

I was trying to calculate the precise number of atoms in a given sample using a coefficient for each individual atom within the periodic table for an unknown sample. You see the problem is that conversion of g/mole x mole/atoms is not precise because the nucleus of most atoms are not even numbers of protons and neutrons. The coefficient is to allow the correct number of sub-particles in the atom but isotopes and unevenness of the nucleus...