Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals?

On Sep 23, 2:29 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sep 22, 8:03 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 20, 8:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 20, 2:10 am, _dee <nom...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Electrons in elements with lower atomic numbers are easy to figure, as
they follow a predictable sequence (1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, etc). But they
depart from the predictable pattern in heavier elements. Is there an
algorithm or formula that determines this?

Seehttp://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Pd/econ.html
for an example. Stepping up or down from element 46 (Palladium)
transitions to a different outer shell configuration. How do you
predict that?

Randy has given you the name for the rule and the general process. The
question rightly asked is what sets the energy levels. As you might
imagine, with dozens of electrons interacting, this isn't a simple
formula, but it can be calculated from first principles without
fudging. You can look up Hartree-Fock, for example.

http://cmm.cit.nih.gov/modeling/guide_documents/quantum_mechanics_doc...

----------
so please do it for the Lead Atom
in one formual please

You're not listening. I said it could be calculated from first
principles without fudging. I didn't say it could be done in one
simple formula. See the link I provided to you. I don't know where you
got the idea that if it takes more than one formula, it means there's
fudging going on.

without fiddling in the known data facts
ie jsut by prediction and extrapoaltion!!
and you become the next Nonelist !! (:-)
and later prove itby experiment
that youcant extract more then 92 !!
----------------
Y.Porat
------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

------------
each Atom and heavy nuc
is a stpry for itself
like faces of human beings

youi will never be able to formulate all of them is a mathematical
formula
and you can even hadly make simple exdtrapolations
from one formula to the other
because your basic assumption that the number
of Prptons is the exact number of electrons
in heavy elements IS WROMG !!!

Well, that's a remarkable statement. For over 150 years it's been
recognized that the number of positive charges in the atom has to
equal the number of negative charges in the atom, in order for the
atom to remain electrically neutral. Now, if you think perhaps that
the proton can "lend" its positive charge somewhere else in the
nucleus, that would be interesting to hear why you think so.

so all your calculations based on that paradigm
are dead by arival as *prediction formula*
th emost you can do (AAND AXCTUASLLY IS DONE!!*
IS fiddling in the experiemntal data into the
formula
by fiddling i mean
'you first shoot a bullet to a blank plate
and fater that you draw a big circle
around the hit place !!and sould aloud ' Horray Bulzeye '!!
(got it metaphorically ??)
iow less polit words
a lot of cheating , deludion or whatever you may call it

and once you learn it
come back tpme
and please dont forget who told you that the
first time !!
(and please dont tell me then
'it was knwn 80 years a go .....)
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages