Re: My New Website

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 07/05/04 

Date: 5 Jul 2004 01:31:42 -0700

Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cc4tls$10t$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cc17cm$m61$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
>
>
> 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.
--------------------
surprises surprises surprises .......

all people were praising the Emperors new cloths
and sudeenly a little chield (a crackpot)
shouted : the Emperror is naked !!! all people around whanted
to kill him ..... remember ???

i dont say that all qm is wrong it has as you say some wonderful achievments but....
i say it is too much 'full of itself' ie too far from
being compltet
and people should be aware about itys real position.
anfd the above is a vey big 'hole' in it that no one before me
notices could you believe it comming from a crackpot??
-----------
-----------------

> > 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.
-----------
my model is a model of a crackpot
your qm is 'the Emperror' so there are some differences about the
demands from a crackpot and from an Emperror got it ???
----------------
>
>
> >>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.
---------
yes anyway i think i did a lot as you will realize one day
much more than anyone before me ---- in some tiny nitch (notch?
my dictinary does not work..
-------------
>
>
> > 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?
--------------
no way i had enough og his 'help' to me
(though i must admitt that from time to time he is cooperating
and suplying me information which i hope is some
change in direction.)

he is hostile and prejudices and quite a personal enemy
so i dont whant him to 'infect you with his mood
you can get it all directly frm me
with my remarks and not with his .... remrks
as you could realise he is far from realy understand my book
i think i could do a bit betetr with you

btw what is your job in your university ??
--------------

>
>
> > 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?
-----------
i didnt study it but since you mentioned Nickel
all the 'iron group ie starting with Cr and ending with Zn
has neerly the same number of atoms per unit volume (Cm^3)!!!!!

that shold not be compatible witht the shell model
since they have much different numbers of electrons!!
so i suspect that your 2.49 is not right.
-------------
>
>
> > 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.
-------------
in my book ....quite enough to make the point...
--------------
>
>
> > 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?
--------------
i explained bur probalbly somewho got lost"
the H2 is aranged something like the V shape
witht he atons at the top of the two upper edges of that V
please note that the bottom point of that V is not an atom
it is just a crossing of the electrons so the angle of that V
might be different than the 109
another quess of mine is that .74 of yourse is not a stable distance!!
if you see my explanatuion you unserstand why.
so my quess is that this .74 A is just an avrage distance!!
(of more than it and less than that .74
----------------
>
>
> >>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?
-----------
see above
a gas with that V shape
--------------
>
>
> >>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!
-------------
i told you that cryustallography was not my main issue
the main was the nuc structure.
and atomic that stems from it.
----------------
--------------
>
>
>
> > 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?
----------------
just remember that what i sayed above is for the nuc !!!!!
the nuc is 'negligible size' compaired to the atom size!!
and here is were you actually steped on an important issue
of my model:
there are no many shells of electrons
that swhy light and heavy have actually the same *atomic* size.
-------------
---------------
>
>
> > 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!
-------------
not if you folow it all along.
sizes of atome is one of the indications for it.
----------
>
>
> > 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".
-----------
i donr show anything i know about the established theiries
just trying to concentrait on the main points the bottom lines.
-------------
>
>
>
> >>>>>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?
> >>>
> >>>---------------
> 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.
-------------
central ????
-----
>
> BTW: Which were now the accumulated facts that you lead to _finding_
> these "hinges"?
-------------
for instance the stability and strenth facts of
one single bond (not in latice that is surounding each atm with 3d bonds
but say in gas atoms
going on to liquids
and than to solid
it is all succesively goes to more bonds to the strong entities.
and less to the weak ones
also th ecarbon ones that we had not don ewith it
but gives you a first clue.
---------
>
>
>
> >
> > ----
> > 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.
-------------
the difference is whther is is a single bond per atom
as in H2 of
an atom that is surounded by single bonds in an efficient 3d way.
i suspect you still miss the points that a structural engineer
get more quicker,(ans sory of 'intuitively' without no need to too much
help in getting it no offence .....)
-----------
--------------
>
>
> > 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.
-------------
yes see above it depends on more factors like i pointed above.
-----------------
>
> BTW: How do you compute the nearest neighbor distance for a "4 fold
> bond" from the arm length a?
-------------
nothing like that
you misunderstood me
i suspected that there is never a 4 fold bond in chemistry
or crystaloography and i wondered why?
just material for thinking.
-----------
>
 
 
>
> "bending" is fine, too.
better 

----
> 
> 
> > 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 /
------------------
?????
see for instance my V expalanaton for X 2 gases X is an unknown.
and dont tell me i dont have a creative immagination ...(:-)
----------
>  
> >>>>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.
we wil see later that thwere are differnt kinds of 'arms'
ie it is not the electron edge that kmakes the properties
but the whole chain
ie to what is that e;lectron connected to mediate it
tio the nuc... astory for itself in my model
for instance 
there is the alpha proton arm
there is the deutron arm etc etc
while the elctron is only at the edge of that arm
and i detected and defined different
but comsistant all along the periodic table characteristics of them.
----------
--------
> 
> 
>  
> > ---------------
> > 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.
-------------
??????
i wold like to get a compuer model in which we can rotate it 
to any desired angle.
-------------
----------
> 
> 
> > (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.
> --------------
if you start patronising
i can doa similar job:
how about your disgrace in not being able
to explain the similar sises of 
Al Ag Au 
untill now it was much more hand waiving
you didnt suply even a 'tail of a number' to explain it
io at least started to suply a tail of a number.....
----------------
> 
> 
> >>>>>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?
--------------
just give me or even youself a claculation
with bottom lines of mumbers!!!
--------------
> 
> BTW: The free energy _is_ a number.
----------
bottom line sir !!!
atom sises!! of Ag Al Au how many of them in a Cm^3 right???
i dont need phylosophy just numbers.
(anfd even not chest drumming i preffere numbers as you do with my suggestions.)
-----------
> 
> 
> >>>>>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).
anyway they have a similar atom size
not explained by th eelectron shell model.
a new hole disciovered in paradigma ????
by an ananymous crackpot??? Y.Porat ??
-----------------
> 
> ciao
> 	Lothar

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Questions about Size of Atoms?
    ... because the electron is one of the building stones of the Atom ... such changes in number of electrons ... 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: If two atoms approach each other shouldnt they experience a force of repulsion?
    ... electropn cloud around around atom A shields the electrons ... bond that keeps them together. ... still an active attraction between them of energy less than a bond. ... It is the result of the momentary dipole dipole interactions that result as the motion of electrons in the molecules cause such weak interactions. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... > notices could you believe it comming from a crackpot?? ... the 3rd shell should be the same for every atom. ... >>than the usual single bond. ... > the difference is whther is is a single bond per atom ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Monatomic hydrogen as fuel - need a low bond energy to single hydrogen atoms.
    ... as single atoms rather than the usual H2 seen in hydrogen gas. ... specific impulse of this fuel could be as high as 1500 s. ... bond energy of about 104 kcal/mol. ... the only cases I've seen had an H atom ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: New Hydrogen Scam? Not really
    ... It's not AMPS that bond the hydrogen to the oxygen together, ... The oxygen atom in the water only has ONE more electron ... An almost brain dead explanation is to talk about electron sharing. ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
Quantcast