Re: My New Website

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 06/19/04 

Date: 19 Jun 2004 01:53:56 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<caud0e$11l$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cas8p1$j9l$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>you saied that a is something (to lazy to look for it...)
> >>>something around 3.5 A
> >>>so i would like if it is based on the Xray findings
> >>>if i am not wrong acording to Bjoerns data and calculations
> >>>it is about 4.5 A .
> >>
> >>You are wrong. I provided the following formula relating x and a,
> >>where x=1.54 A is the distance between adjacent atoms:
> >> a = 4 x / sqrt(3)
> >>Plugging in the value for x, one gets:
> >> a = 3.56 A.
> >>Nicely consistent with the 3.57 A which Lothar Brendel mentions below.
> >>
> >>I wonder where you got the 4.5 A from...
i will check it later
---------------
>
> Care to answer that?
--------------
we cant go on with hundreds of lines per article
so one by one
---------------------
>
>
> > ----------------------
> > my question is what is the definition od 'the closesd distance'
> > between two atoms in that crystal
>
> Huh??? The closest distance is the closest distance! What does one
> need to "define" here?
------------------
had it been a direct photograph than no problem
the problem starts while it is not a direct observation but
a 'multy degree of digetion' degree
i anm not an expert for all theose techniques that lead to those results
sdo i need a lot of time to study it
in that ocation
thanks to Bjoern and Lothar for bothering and suplying many links
about it
btw are you two sure you folowand undrestand it unequivocally??
-------------

>
> Yes, there are many angles. So what??? You haven't actually studied
> how the Debye-Scherrer method is done, right?
>
>
> > if you donrt realise that
> > actually you see; atomes of different layers (neighbouring layers)
>
> One does not see the atoms, one "sees" the distances between layers.
>
>
> > you get a too small result (hope my claim is undestood)
>
> Your claim nicely shows that you still haven't understood how
> the Debye-Scherrer method actually works.
----------
yes as i sayed above i am not an expert about all those techniques
are you ??
-------------
>
>
> > now even numerically there are angles in which you will see a distance
> > of say 1.5 A while the real distance is 1.5/sin 109 deg
> > which gives you something (quote from a few days memory)
> > something like 1.8 or 1.9 A
>
> You can't even calculate such simple things, I see. 1.54 A / sin 109°
> gives 1.63 A, not the 1.94 A you would need for your idea of "two atoms
> per ball".
---------------
sorry
it should be 1.54 / half of the 109 derfee (sinus)
knowong my slopy way of typing you should guess it youself.......)
--------------------.
-------------
>
> In it, one uses a *powder* of the material one wants to examine, i.e. a
> collection of *very* small crystalline particles. Obviously in such a
> powder, the orientation of every individual particle to the X-rays is
> totally random - i.e. one measures at every possible angle *AT ONCE*!!!
> <http://journals.iucr.org/iucr-top/comm/cteach/pamphlets/16/node2.html>
>
> In other methods, where one uses a whole crystal instead of a powder,
> the X-ray scattering is done at a *lot* of different angles, and from
> the collection of the measurements at *all* angles, one then determines
> the distances between the layers!!!
---------------
very nice
but i am afried non of us realy folowed it to check all
the detailes
i was born a skeptic so ? if you like kill me for that ......
-----------------
>
> No one is so stupid that he would measure the scattering only at *one*
> angle and then claim that this is sufficient to determine the distances
> between layers and the crystal structure!!!
>
> Could you *please* stop thinking that all people who work on this are
> soooooooooooooooo totally stupid that no one had ever thought of this
> ***TRIVIAL*** problem?
---------------
the trouble it it is not TRIVIAL.
---------------
>
>
>
> > so the other sides are imediately found by one sin or cos
> > calcualtion.
>
> And that's *exactly* what I did do!!!!!!!!!! I wrote (quote):
>
> "Now we can use some trigonometry in this triangle in order to see that
> (a/(2 sqrt(2))/x = sin(alpha/2)."
>
> Say, are you sure we are talking about the same calculation?????????
> You keep saying that I didn't do things which I actually *did* do!!!
> Have you even *read* my calculation?????
>
>
>
> > btw a technicla question to you (that i dont know too lazy you know ...)
> > how do you manage to insert in our poor editor
> > a link that give the other member the posibility to
> > extract it as you did with your jpg triangle etc
>
> I don't know what you mean by "extract" here, sorry.

i mean that the figure will be avaiable to the reader by just
cliking it
if you have a site you can quote a site
but if you havnt what do you do then, in order to deliver
just a scetch of a figure that will be a part of this article.
as you did with your triangle?
-----------
>
> I simply typed in the URL, enclosed in < >. Nothing special about that!
how can you change or modify
or just 'copy and past a part of someone elses url
and past it in this article ???
sorry my ignorance about those techniques.
---------------
>
>
> > you must be specific
> > just abstract declarations is good for declarations
> > we must deal with concreet examples.
>
> Specific examples are spectra, ionization and binding energies.
>
>
>
> "archeplogical"???????
        o .....
----------
archeologic dont you guess my sloppy typing?....
the p letter is next to the o letter .. just watch your keyboard..(:-)
----------------
>
>
> >>>>>so again i cant see how one can 'add' something more in it
> >>>>
> >>>>Though fcc can be obtained from packing spheres close, not every fcc
> >>>>structure must be very dense; i.e. the obejcts sitting at the lattice points
> >>>>don't need to touch each other.
> >>>
> >>>--------------
> >>>the atome never touch each other
> >>
> >>How do you know?
> >
> > -----------------
> > common dont you think that atoms might be neighbours but not connected
> > to each other?
>
> If they are *adjacent*, i.e. *nearest* neighbours, I don't see how they
> should be able to *not* touch each other.
---------------
if there is no electron connection it is generaly meaninless
for the latice connection- those electron bonds are actually
the latice makers.
------------------
>
>
> > like the ones at neighbouring layers of say grapyte?
>
> Err, we were talking about crystals here. Graphite is not a crystal.
>
> But even in graphite, I think that atoms in different layers *do* indeed
> touch each other. If they wouldn't, what would keep the layers apart? Do
> you want to claim that graphite consists of layers with totally empty
> space in between?
-----------------
think about a possibility that those bigger gaps are made by *less electrons'
than those that are *in those layers* .....
fo rinstance only one of the two electrons in the 'gap direction'
or even one from each side of the gap is 'working'
while the other is remaining free (explaines why it is
conducting electricity unlike the diamond
so may be anothe indication that the electron bind length
is more than 1.57 A ??
---------------

>
>
>
> >>>it is those 'arms' that thouch.
> >>
> >>How do you know?
> >
> > -------------
> > iot is the elctrons connections that i call 'arms'
> > only if there is electron connection!(bonds)
> > ----------
>
> Electrons belong to the atom. Hence if the electrons touch, the atoms
> touch. Don't play word games, please.
---------
ok bond instead of touch.
-----------
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >>This is not consistent with observations. Thus your idea of "only one
> >>arm length" is dead on arrival.
> >
> > -----------------
> > easy easy
> > you overloked the posibility that those electrons might strech out
> > in angles that are different from 109 deg.....
> > and other geometric possibilities
>
> Then you don't have a structure composed of tetrahedrons anymore. Wasn't
> that your basic assumption here?
>
>
> > see for instance how i explained the double and tripple bond
> > distances between two carbon atoms in my book paqges 129 130
> > it needs some 3d underrstanding and investment of time.
> > to get it.
>
> It also needs some clearer pictures instead of the rather fuzzy ones
> which you did draw there.
--------------------
so let me add some words about it
of course one picture in worth hundreds of words
but thats what is available to me just now
so please Bjoern and Lothar
try to undrstyand my folowing claimes and explanation.
th4 bottom lne of it is :
all those diffrent distances between atoms can be explained
with *just one electron bond length*!!
and please who was the crackpot from whom you first heared about it
i can starty it from the data of the elements
Aluminum Argentum and Gold ie their specific weight
in relation to their atomic weight
but
i preffere to concenrtate at this point with another triall:

ie the single double and tripple bond if carbon
all of them besd on just one tetraheder
in which there is a Carbon atom at its middle
and it sends electron arms to 4 of its corners.

so the single bond is while just two corners of two such tetraheders
are bonded (geometrically it is corner touching
now the double bond is while tyhe same 2 tetraheders
with the same arm lemgth are 'touching' not in one corner
but alond a side that inclused *two corners*
the distance between the center of tetraheders (in which the
nuc lives) becomes than closer! yet the two other remeining cormers
are not touching and remain more distant

while you take the above double bond sitiation and *tillt*
one of the two remaining corners untill they as well touch
each other- the cetnters of those tetrahedes becomes still
more closer than the case of just a double bond
now th epoint is that in my book i do not only tell you
a 'nice story' but i actually calculated it numerically
to fit all the 3 cases of bonds (with the 3 different distances)
and please dont forget from which crackpot you hered about
such a sort of explanation for the first time!
--------------
now you can understand why i was interested in suplying sketches
here in this poor editor....
--------------
Bye
Y.
-----------
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My New Website
    ... The closest distance is the closest distance! ... > if there is no electron connection it is generaly meaninless ... >>Then you don't have a structure composed of tetrahedrons anymore. ... > now the double bond is while tyhe same 2 tetraheders ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... >>What has God got to do with the fact that you violate the basic ... > i thing it is to find the distance between the centroid ... distance for a triple bond: ... it 1/3 of the arm (electron) length. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Questions about Size of Atoms?
    ... because the electron is one of the building stones of the Atom ... the resistance is changing because a change in electron 'arangement' ... The size of an atom can be estimated by measuring the distance between ... the bond is *in another direction to another Atom* ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
    ... A new theory of gravity. ... The electrostatic attraction force between two particles is given ... distance between them squared, and usually multiplied by a factor ... The electron to the muon, one quark to the next, etc? ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one
    ... A new theory of gravity. ... The electrostatic attraction force between two particles is given ... distance between them squared, and usually multiplied by a factor ... The electron to the muon, one quark to the next, etc? ...
    (sci.physics)