Re: My New Website

From: Lothar Brendel (l.no.spam.brendel_at_uni-duisburg.de)
Date: 07/03/04 

Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 02:12:42 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cc17cm$m61$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cbuav2$2bn$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
>>>

[...]

> once you are a part of a 'establishment society'
> it is too often that those members of it are so indulged in thier
> paradigmas that they cannot see their mistakes

But just being out of "establishment society" doesn't make your
statements right. And you don't see your mistakes either.

> iow cooking themselves in thier own juice

This juice is rather spicy, I tell you. You, on the other hand are
cooking only in your very own juice, no feedback; you always agree with
yourself. (That's another reason you can't deal with critisism.)

But now back to the numbers...

[...]

> i gave you a little exam[ple to thing about it;
> the number of atoms per Cm^3 in Al Ar and Au
> all of them have a very similar number of atoms per Cm^3
> so what ???? a minor tiny detail that has to be ignored ! isnt that??

In how far has this fact been ignored?

Only _you_ think it would contradict QM calculations.

> but how come (quantitatively !!!!!!- in numbers!!)
> that an atom with 13 electrons and another one with 49 electrns
> and another one with 79 electrons
> has such a similar *distance * between their atome in their latice ???
> please think abou tit
> but not only think
> calculate acording to anything you want (but do it with numbers
> not hand waiving) and get the results of the expected distance
> *from that calculations of yourse ie qm or whatever smart theory you got.

You are expecting a full blown QM calculation here (which could be done
only numerically anyway) because you are too lazy to look up the works
and while you youself are too lazy to correct even your
tetrahedron-geometry? Very funny, lazybone.

>>So, to what numbers can we stick? Which numbers do you provide?
>>
>>There are "spiders" with _4_ arms with an angle of 109° between each of
>>them. Fine.
>>
>>Then we have an arm length a of today a=2.16Å, but that value can change
>>every day according to your liking.
>
> -------------
> actually it seems that both of you are spending much more time on it
> tha i do it right now (and i thank you for that - no cynicism)
> anyway Bjoern suggested a number (quote from memory of about 10 minutes ago
> too lazy to look back.... it was someting between 1.6 - 1.8... A
> so lets trry it all of us i welcome that teem work!

It's still your work to be done, lazybone.

> Bjoern can testify btw that i in my book suggested the number of 1.9 A
> as an alternative.

BTW: What about page 94? Can Bjoern send it to me?

> so if it works better lets go on that number. and try to advance it
> there migh tbe needed some new improvements even somer corrective
> ideas but i am sure we are on the right principle way!!

How can you possibly expect to achieve agreement to all the (say) fccs
with nearest neighbor distances from 2.49Å (nickel) to 4.3Å (strontium)
by adjusting _one_ parameter?

> ie some basic bond length and not endless numbers
> that is used in different geometric angles and ways
> by ways i mean fo rinstance that in some cases there is only
> *one arm between two atone* in other cases *two arms*
> in other 3 arms

And you still failed to demonstrate how to build lattices from these
arrangements.

> btw another interesting questiuon that occeres to me
> why is it a max of 3 arms bond and not more/(on one plan)
> in my nuc astuctures thwer are even 4 bonds in one plan)!

Surely you are not interested in QM's answer.

>>Then you use this arm length a to construct "binding lengths" between
>>2a=4.32Å (straight "single bond") and 2a/3=1.44Å ("triple bond").
>>
>>To what should we comapre these binding lengths? To an X_2-moleclue with
>>an arbitarty element X?
>>
>>That obviously doesn't work for H_2, since its bond length is 0.74Å < 1.44Å.

No comment?

>>It doesn't work for Carbon (i.e. C_2), about which the discussion
>>started, either, since its bond length is 1.24Å < 1.44Å.

No comment?

>>Not really a number, but equally important is the lattice structure.
>>What do you get there? You admit that you have no idea how to combine
>>the "spiders" to get the correct lattice for diamond.
>
> -----------
> not yet so soon i simply didnt invest the proper time for it.

You had time to write a _book_ without thinking how to get crystal
lattices from your model? That's tough!

> the sider or crab is just a memory aid (and you realise the fact
> you remember it that it is an efficient memory aid!
> a sider has its legs at his side
> my atom has its *working arms* at his front and back only !!!
> no more than 4 at each direction
> my atom is from fluorine upwards - a sort of a rectaggular pipe
> that becomes bigger and bigger with atom wight actually

How big for gold?

> built of quartets of alpha rectangular sections connected in
> linear succesion (if you wantr methaphorically the way surage pipe
> sections are connected linearily (quite a smelly methaphore isnt it?(:-)
>
> but the result of it is that onlt the atoms at the edges of those
> structres are working all th einner ones are eithr lost during
> connection or inactive fro some reasons

"For some reasons"..., fie! Hand waver!

> so we get similar properties fo rheavy and light atoms
> becuase of similar geometric structre.
> and Al is similar to Ag and that to Au
> now dont give me yoyur 'ignorat titles' because you can immagine
> that i know the 'establishment theories and explanations

With every post you clearly demonstrate that you know next to nothing
about the "established theories".

> and that sth epoint were i was beave enough to make the rebellion
> against it and find something else.

You made a rebellion against what you don't understand and what you find
implausible. Agreement with experiments obviously wasn't important for you.

[...]

>>>>>for instance i found that a single bond like that of say
>>>>>molecules of gas are *hinge' bonds
>>>>
>>>>How did you _find_ that? Did you take a photograph?
>>>
>>>---------------
>>>no
>>>by acululating facts.
>>
>>Which facts? A hinge can transmit torques; can your "single bond" do
>>that as well?
>
> please donr be , how do you call it nit pricky
> i dont consider it being able to get much torqu may be only for some extent

Then, "hinge" is quite a misnomer.

> anyway i dont think torque is taken in acount in any of the theories
> about it.

Exactly, it isn't (atom forces are central forces), in agreement with
experiments.

BTW: Which were now the accumulated facts that you lead to _finding_
these "hinges"?

>>>a single bond is typical to week structures
>>>like gas molecules
>>
>>The bonds in diamond _are_ single bonds. But we must be careful since
>>your "single bond", which I will call YP-single bond, is different from
>>what is typically meant by this term.
>
> ----
> it is not a single bond it is 4 fold bond

That's why I pointed out that your YP-single bond denotes something else
than the usual single bond.

> of 4 hinge arms that
> became 'out of hinge ' because of the altogether geometric situation.
> do you mean to mock me ? or to discuss it?

I just want to point out that your single/double/triple bonds are not to
be confused with the normal meaning of these terms.

BTW: How do you compute the nearest neighbor distance for a "4 fold
bond" from the arm length a?

>>>>It should yield the correct nearest neighbor distance _and_ the correct
>>>>lattice structure. Up to now, you didn't provide none of them.
>>>
>>>if you say so i rase up my hands .... (;-)
>>
>>What does it mean? You admit that your model doesn't give these information?
>
> i give up my attemts to tell you about some 'other ideas' than the paradigma.

And these "other ideas" don't have to agree with experiments?

>>>>That's straight: --
>>>>That's buckled: /\
>>>
>>>----------
>>>thnak you you could get some private lessons about buckling
>>>from a civil engineee dont you think so
>>
>>Why? What's wrong about the pciture?
>
> -----------
> buckling in structural engineering is sort of 'total loss'

 From the Merriam-Webster: to buckle = to bend, heave, warp or kink
usually under the influence of some external agency

> because th e bending moment gets bigger and bigger
> as the pole keeps on more bending untill its bitter end!!
> ie bucling of a pole leads to its complete *suden*! destruction
> so may be you would like 'bending' or angle deviation??

"bending" is fine, too.

> anyway my new idea is that
> the real connection between eletrons of neighbouring atome
> are in too many cases not on the shortest line netween the nucs.!
> and that opens a vast way of posibilites to explain
> known distances between atome with much less 'electron bond lengths'

Sure, like that:
          / o
         / /
        o /

But _why_ and how should they do that? => Hand waving!

>>>>>you know nothing about my model
>>>>>you know only feuerbachers malicious views
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, I know what you presented here. And nothing of it provided any
>>>>correct value at all.
>
> --------------
> still you know practically nothing about my model.

I know, that it yields no or wrong (depending whether you finally fix a
value for the arm length) results about the most basic lattice
parameters. That's sufficient to critisize it.

I don't dare to ask about electronic properties.

>>>that is not the main issue in my model so stop
>>>jumping to silly conclusions and parrot feuercacher.
>>
>>Even if it's not its main issue, your model fails to provide the
>>_most_basic_ data. That's evident and no silly conclusion.
>
> ---------------
> so i will improve those issues later 9may be with your help

Up to now, you showed no willingness to do any improvements. You didn't
even bother to recalculate your unit cell's volume.

> (unless you are apriory got into that discussion
> with the apriory goal of 'killing me' as Bjoern the FERTZ inventor
> is looking for revange .....

You shouldn't raise that topic, you already disgraced yourself enough there.

>>>>>i would like to get an acurate answer as you show in other cases
>>>>>and not just general 'hand waiving'
>>>>
>>>>Answer: The total free energy for the system when being in these two
>>>>lattice structures is higher than for the lattice structure we actually
>>>>find.
>>>
>>>----------------
>>>a perfect hand waiving
>>>that is not an answer you would accept frm me isnt that?
>>
>>Of course I would, since the concept of minimizing the free energy is
>>precisely defined and no hand waving at all.
>
> ---------
> we stick to numbers remember??!!

To which numbers do _you_ stick?

BTW: The free energy _is_ a number.

>>>>>now another thing for you to think about;
>>>>>waht is the laticer structure of the elements:
>>>>>Aluminum
>>>>>Silver
>>>>>and Gold
>>>>>and how many atome they have per cubic Cm.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you look it up yourself, lazybone?
>>>
>>>no i know the answer
>>
>>I don't think so. In your response to Bjoern, you demonstrated clearly
>>that you saw the fcc lattice (ccp is a synonym for fcc) for the first
>>time on http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Al/xtal.html.
>
> -------------
> i donrt get your point are they all of them not of the same
> structural kind?

No, they're not. bcc is not fcc is not hcp (but ccp=fcc, just different
names).

ciao
        Lothar

Quantcast