Re: My New Website

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 06/22/04 

Date: 21 Jun 2004 22:34:20 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cb6the$rrc$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<caud0e$11l$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >
> elow.
> >>>>
> >>>>I wonder where you got the 4.5 A from...
------------------
i am not sure about it (too lazy to go back to your calculation)
but i dont recall (may be i am wrong) that you used what was
indicated in the quoted sites
that 'a'(a ^3) is a cubbe in which the tertaheder is thaking only
one third of the 'diagonal' of the a cube
it is not clear to me if it is the planar diagonal
or the 3d diagonal of the cubic A
anyway i dont remember that you used that 'fact'
that one tertahder is only one third of the diagonal
-------------
> >
> > i will check it later
> > ---------------
> >
> >>Care to answer that?
> >
> > --------------
> > we cant go on with hundreds of lines per article
>
> Why not? You probably have lots of free time, don't you?
-------------
not exactly i have more 'paying' occupations
and sorry my age is making me less motivated and less patiant...
(i becoming less 'testeronated' than you......)
-----------------

>
> And, BTW, if my post was too long, why did you leave the part above
> in it, instead of snipping it, but nevertheless didn't bother to answer
> my question?
>
> So again: where did you get the 4.5 A from?
----------
see above
anyway i satill doubt the meaning of that 1.54
it might be the distance between atoms of different
layers
that 1.54/ sin 54 is the distance between atoms
as i sayed above while the real distance is actually 1.8 1.9 A
i showd it in my book for a few examples that i can explain
all (all of them that i met which is realt not all the possible
i admit but i saw a clear and astonishing trend as i sayed above
it needs some crative imagination as i will explain folowing)
----------------
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>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
>
> "digestion"??????????
---------------
yes we all realised due to this thread and recalled that
*it is actually not a **direct observation** it involves quite
a series of 'interpretations' of what we 'see directly'
(interpretations or handlind or processing you chose the right word)
and that processing migh tlead to mistakes.- especially if
one is 'locked on a concept' ie takes something as granted.
i might be wrong but as i sayed
as long as i have different findings and as long
i didnt folow all those processing i am not convinced.
----------------
--------------
>
>
>
> > i anm not an expert for all theose techniques that lead to those results
> > sdo i need a lot of time to study it
>
> Please do!
-----------
i am 66..... you are about half my age ....
motivation problems you see.weven if i do it it will be
very slow.ie will take time.
and btw my access to data is actually poor.
-------------
>
>
> > 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! Hey, I even learned that already in *school*, in my final year!
> This essentially was stuff I had to learn for my "Abitur" (the final
> exam in schools in Germany, which you have to pass in order to be
> allowed to go to the university)!
---------
no no dont be drifted. or else you dont even now realise
the complexity of things.
-----------
---------------
>
> >>Yes, there are many angles. So what??? You haven't actually studied
> >>how the Debye-Scherrer method is done, right?
>
> Right?
> laim 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 ??
>
> Not an expert, but I know the methods good enough to see the faults
> in your reasoning.
-----------
we will se later about it
anyway it is clear that your main driving instinct is to 'kill me'
(not so much the desire to understand nature....)
--------------
   
> > ---------------
> > sorry
> > it should be 1.54 / half of the 109 derfee (sinus)
>
> That would give approx. 1.89 A. However, what you would need is 1.94 A!
>
> But you don't care for deviations of 2.5%, right?
--------------
no i am still not Gods friend as you are with absolut self
confidence ans acuracy....
----------------
>
>
> >>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
>
> You didn't understand what I wrote, right?
-------------
did you ??
and still in all those indirect observation
there is th epossibility of error.
-----------
>
>
> > but i am afried non of us realy folowed it to check all
> > the detailes
>
> "follow" in what way? Actually go to the laboratory and look the
> instruments up, or what do you want?
---------------
i am not a university man to go to the laboratory .....
-------------
 
>
> >>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.
>
> For people who work on that, it *is* trivial!!!!!
-------------
thats what you think
too much self confidence is not a good adviser.
-----------
 
> Hello? Do you withdraw your assertions now about what I did wrong in
> my calculation?
>
>
> >>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
>
> Err, simply give a link to the figure??? I don't see the problem, sorry.
>---------------
in order to make a link it has to be saved on some computer
right?
if you have a site it is the computer of the site- not my computer
do you say that i can give a link to some place on *my computer*??
(that other people will have access to my comuter?
can i use anothres comuter memory???!!.
ans what will my firewall say about it??
stil not clear to me .sorry
--------------

 
 
 
> >>>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.
> > ------------------
>
> This has nothing to do with the question if they touch each other or not.
>-------------
the only 'touch of atoms' is through their electrons.
-------------
 
  
>
> > -----------------
> > think about a possibility that those bigger gaps are made by *less electrons'
> > than those that are *in those layers* .....
>
> How can electrons make gaps???
--------------
electrons do not make gapps they made connections
if less electrons take part in it the distance
between atoms of carbon i sbigger see later.
-------------
>
>
> > fo rinstance only one of the two electrons in the 'gap direction'
> > or even one from each side of the gap is 'working'
>
> "working"???
---- doing the connections. whu are you so priky
try to read thoughts not words.
--------------
>
>
> > while the other is remaining free (explaines why it is
> > conducting electricity unlike the diamond
>
> This is also nicely explained by standard physics, thank you.
>
>
> > so may be anothe indication that the electron bind length
> > is more than 1.57 A ??
>
> Huh? I have no clue what you mean here.
---------------
as i will try to show yopu later
the electron length that makes th econnections (bonds)
is gernrally *not on the shortest line connecting the
nuclei* !!!
it happence sideways to that line!!
you asked later about H2 for me it is another example:

the connection in that case is not on the shortest line
between nucs each H atom is sending an electron
to one direction
the connectionbetween them is *at the edges of that
(1.9 distnace) but 1.9 distance sideways
ie you get a triangle in which two of its sides
are 1.9 A while the distance between nucs is .....
on the third line of that triangle a much shorter distance
i dont remember what it is but much shorter

now at the H2O case the hydrogen is connecter
to the edges of the oxygen atoms (separated someting like our
fqamous 109 deg) in that case *the Hydrogen lost its electrons
and is connected ti the oxygens electrons edges
alse about 1.9 A from the O nuc.and 109 deg angle between
those 'arms '
(one figure is worth a hundred words......)
--------
--------------

>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>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*!!
>
> Well, if you think this is possible, do it. You gave only two examples
> about this in your book, IIRC - what about explaining all the
> other examples? You can start with H_2, proceed with N_2, O_2 and
> H_2O, etc.
>
>
> > 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
>
> Incomprehensible.
---------
not for you at this stage ....
----------
>
>
> > 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.
>
> What length do you use for the "electron arms",
1.9 A !
-----------

 and what
> do you mean by "binding length"? The distance between the centers
> of the two tetrahedrons?
-----------
1.9 A
----------
>
>
> > 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
>
> So far, I could follow you. But I don't understand the calculation
> you presented on this in your book.
--------------
i havw a strong recomendation for you:
do what i did:
take two iron wires ( i did it from the wire of two paperclipses
entangle them at their middles
and strech out the for 'arms' to 109 deg separation between
all 'arms'
you got th emodel of the carbon atom with its electrons
in your hand
the imaginary cover of those arms is the famous 3d tetraheder
a nice symetric pyramid
now if you totch two of those 'pyramid 'leges'
the cenroid of those pyramids are at a certain
distance that can be calculated exacly as dependat of the
'arm length' (the 1.9 A)
now try to atach 3 'arms' each from each pyramid 9each Carbon-
to make it shorter)
once you touch 3 arms insted of only two
you realise that the center of those pyramids
is becoming closer (than the case of only two arms)

you can make it(the diastance netween the middles of
the centoid of the two pyramids ) not only qualitatively but
quamtitatively as i did it in my book
as a function of the 1.9 A arm
you will get at the case of the 'double bond' (only 2 arms touch)
1.54
while at the case of 3 arms touch (the tripple bond)
you will get a distance (of columes centroids)
about 1.42 A
that fits known data (as much as written in my old books)
so no need for comlicated QM arguments and calculations
just the 3d steromerty that you *not me* ....
learned at your primery school

actually inmy opinion to find the centroid of that
tetraheder and diatnances to another one are not 'soo trivial'
it is not 'terribly complicated' but needs time and thinking
and calculations.
-------------
bye
Y
------------------

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My New Website
    ... I merely used the distance between adjacent atoms. ... And I explained my calculation in great detail, ... I.e. you simply choose the angles with which the arms ... If two tetrahedrons touch at one corner, i.e. one arm of each is connected ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... you wilol get the distance between the centroids ... even then my findigs are that the real connection point ... like that of the tripple bond of 2 carbons. ... >> and if not complicated enough sometimes it is two electrons ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... > that a nucleus with Z protons in it has a charge of Z*e. ... >> Geiger did this nonsense physically calculation many decadeslater ... >> so it is not the electrons but the nuc. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
    ... > that a nucleus with Z protons in it has a charge of Z*e. ... >> Geiger did this nonsense physically calculation many decadeslater ... >> so it is not the electrons but the nuc. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: New Cubic Atomic Model explains electron energy levels and bonding
    ... > is practially the same as Al with 14 electrons ... It is unnecessary to do a full calculation of an atomic wave function ... produce outstanding work" ...
    (sci.physics)