| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"_dee" |
| Date: |
20 Sep 2007 02:10:28 AM |
| Object: |
Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
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?
See
http://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?
.
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
20 Sep 2007 01:31:52 PM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 2:10 am, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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_document.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
22 Sep 2007 08:03:08 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 8:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:10 am, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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
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
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
22 Sep 2007 08:36:49 AM |
|
|
On Sep 22, 8:03 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:10 am, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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
------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
23 Sep 2007 02:29:26 AM |
|
|
On Sep 22, 3:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 8:03 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:10 am, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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 !!!
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
----------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
23 Sep 2007 02:39:11 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190532566.152613.297000@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
------------
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
We already have good models from atoms.
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 !!!
You're a joke rat boy
[snip crap]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 02:33:44 AM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 9:39 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190532566.152613.297000@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
------------
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
We already have good models from atoms.
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 !!!
You're a joke rat boy
[snip crap]
-----------
psychopth moron Superfertz Nazi parsite
that has no day job
and no human face no human name coward psychopth
-------------------------------------
---------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 02:46:40 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190619224.307998.249230@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 9:39 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190532566.152613.297000@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
------------
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
We already have good models from atoms.
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 !!!
You're a joke rat boy
[snip crap]
-----------
psychopth moron Superfertz Nazi parsite
that has no day job
and no human face no human name coward psychopth
Fuckwit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 07:37:40 AM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 2:29 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 8:03 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:10 am, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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 -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 08:02:04 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190637460.919417.152140@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
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.
Didn't you know .. in the world of porat, photons do not have to have a
positive charge.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 08:51:33 AM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190637460.919417.152140@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
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.
Didn't you know .. in the world of porat, photons do not have to have a
positive charge.
Careful, you'll confuse the poor man.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 05:18:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:51:33 -0000, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190637460.919417.152140@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
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.
Didn't you know .. in the world of porat, photons do not have to have a
positive charge.
Careful, you'll confuse the poor man.
PD
Try explaining charge neutrality with Gauss's law + divergence
theorem.
div.E = Q_enclosed/\epsilon_0 ....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 11:56:33 PM |
|
|
On Sep 25, 12:18 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:51:33 -0000, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sep 24, 8:02 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190637460.919417.152140@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
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.
Didn't you know .. in the world of porat, photons do not have to have a
positive charge.
Careful, you'll confuse the poor man.
PD
Try explaining charge neutrality with Gauss's law + divergence
theorem.
div.E = Q_enclosed/\epsilon_0 ....- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
---------------
what has that got to do
with Hadrons
gaining or loosing electrons ??
the Gausse law is only for*** fixed*** structures
it does not deal with changing structures in which
number of electrons was changed !!??
------------
Y.P
--------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 11:15:14 AM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 2:37 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 23, 2:29 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 3:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 8:03 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 8:31 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2:10 am, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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 -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------------
MR PD
you cant hold the streched string in both of its edges
if you think i dont knowabout waht i am talking then just keep
on discussion with the moron psychopath parrot jelyle
or with anothe r one of that parrot chorus
if youlike to hear some new interesting ideas
you have to talk to me respectfully
got theidea ???
now just soemthing that a parrot never take in acount
a possitive chasrge can be 'lost'
not only bt some magic
it czn be lost in electron capture !
if it gets an eelctron from outside
and it happense nonstop !!
OTOH a neureon can loos its electron
and become a a Proton
2
theree is another phenomena that happense
in the nuc
but not a frequnt one
say
only on thre birth process of the nuc
ie while it is created buy an assembly process
of smaller ingerdients
it need new bonds
bonds ar etaking palce at the edges of the
Protons and neutronsand if you dont realist that
thoose Hadrons are not just 'a solidball indivisible ball'
you get that that is is composed as a chain of orbitals !!
it is the edge orbitals that make the bond
and it needs that some of them will be trmmed out !
all the chrge properties are on the edges and by htose
edge orbitals
it is not for a post in th enet to expalin and
conbvince you
it needs some investment of time and explanations
sojust have a look on my site
and ignore its 'looks ' because
i am not a sit ebuilder
i even dont know now
how to corerct the spelling of paulling'
to Pauling'
so you are right while youcall me
'poor Porat'
but dont exagetate about poor in what sense !! (:-)
and btw
if you whant to make some semsible discussion
use your influence to take that
disturbed parasite Jekyle out of my back !!or else
it wil go one here
in his mad psychopatic way !!
2
i am not going to reveal secrets that migh tbe dangerous
and fall inot wrong hands .....
keep well
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
20 Sep 2007 09:08:04 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 3:10 am, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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?
See http://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?
Are you talking about order of filling of subshells?
The pattern is called the "Aufbau" principle, and is followed with
only a few exceptions. The order follows diagonals on a table
(well, technically "anti-diagonals" as they go from upper right
to lower left). See here for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration
The
1s
2s
2p, 3s
3p, 4s
3d, 4p, 5s
4d, 5p, 6s
This is in order of increasing energy. However, there are
a few exceptions where the order changes because the
relative energy changes. The Wiki article lists those.
For instance, after the configuration with 4s2, 3d3
the next element has 4s1, 3d5 which turns out to be
a lower energy configuration than 4s2, 3d4.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "_dee" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
21 Sep 2007 03:04:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:08:04 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sep 20, 3:10 am, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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?
See http://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?
Are you talking about order of filling of subshells?
The pattern is called the "Aufbau" principle, and is followed with
only a few exceptions. The order follows diagonals on a table
(well, technically "anti-diagonals" as they go from upper right
to lower left). See here for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration
Thanks to all for the replies.
Yes, I did know the term 'Aufbau' and probably should have stated
that. And I know of the 'diagonal' method that works for lower shells.
I hadn't seen the list of exceptions on Wikipedia (thanks, saves me
from trying to find specifics). I thought that there may be a simple
formula or explanation for what's going on when they deviate from the
'diagonal' pattern.
This is in order of increasing energy. However, there are
a few exceptions where the order changes because the
relative energy changes.
I think that there are at least 25 of those exceptions, right? I'm not
sure if Lanthanides and Actinides were accounted for in that list
either.
The Wiki article lists those.
For instance, after the configuration with 4s2, 3d3
the next element has 4s1, 3d5 which turns out to be
a lower energy configuration than 4s2, 3d4.
That's what I was trying to figure out--why the variations from the
regular pattern of the lower-order elements. It sounds from the
replies like this is not a simple, direct equation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
20 Sep 2007 02:37:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:10:28 -0400, _dee <nomail@nomail.com> 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?
The Schroedinger equation will cover the low Z elements. You will need
the Schroedinger equation + relativistic corrections for mid to high Z
elements.
See
http://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?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
20 Sep 2007 11:25:48 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 9:37 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 03:10:28 -0400, _dee <nom...@nomail.com> 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?
The Schroedinger equation will cover the low Z elements. You will need
the Schroedinger equation + relativistic corrections for mid to high Z
elements.
See
http://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?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------------
there i sno fucken formula whatsoever for heavy elements
it is a big lie
they are just fiddling data to the formulas
and never 'colse it' to be general enough
doyouknow why
because no fucken formula will wvwe do it
each nuc(and Atom) is a 'personality for itself
and the worst part of itis:
*the assumption that the number of electrons
around' a heavy nuc -- are the same as the number
of Protons in it IS WRONG !!
so you can spend all your life
and your grandchildrens life looking a firmual based
on that false assumption and get nothing right
only the crooks idiots like Gisse jekyle Poe &other parots
can tell you how to formulate a real havvy Atom!!
Y.Porat
----------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
20 Sep 2007 12:10:39 PM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
*the assumption that the number of electrons
around' a heavy nuc -- are the same as the number
of Protons in it IS WRONG !!
OK, so how many electrons does a neutral
atom of U-238 contain (92 protons, 146 neutrons
in nucleus)?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
22 Sep 2007 07:58:14 AM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 7:10 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
*the assumption that the number of electrons
around' a heavy nuc -- are the same as the number
of Protons in it IS WRONG !!
OK, so how many electrons does a neutral
atom of U-238 contain (92 protons, 146 neutrons
in nucleus)?
- Randy
----------------
i dint try to folow it exactly
anyway
it is not exactlt 92!!
actaully very different from 92!
the chemically active are no more than 8
tjere are many others thjat tak wpart in IT activities
eelcron capture and electron emmision
se my site:
http://geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
take the lead nuc
the chemically active are only at the front and backpoles
the other ones are along the nuc sides
sort of a caterpilars legs streched sideways
the beta radiation
is only from the front and back poles chain of orbitals
(the elctron is at the edge of the chain !!)
i checked it thorouhgly
and it fits exactly the data i got from the liberaries .
there are many others
actually
if you squize the Atom to hard
you can get much more then 92 !!
that i smy prediction
since no one untill now tried tosquise it
beyound 92
guess why ??
it is the chaines of paradigm
ie no ne will dream about extrcating more than 92
while th e paradigm told him there are no more than 92 !!
and i guess btw that
even extarction 92 is a very difficult elusive job !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
electron capture
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
22 Sep 2007 08:07:32 AM |
|
|
On Sep 22, 2:58 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:10 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
*the assumption that the number of electrons
around' a heavy nuc -- are the same as the number
of Protons in it IS WRONG !!
OK, so how many electrons does a neutral
atom of U-238 contain (92 protons, 146 neutrons
in nucleus)?
- Randy
----------------
i dint try to folow it exactly
anyway
it is not exactlt 92!!
actaully very different from 92!
the chemically active are no more than 8
tjere are many others thjat tak wpart in IT activities
eelcron capture and electron emmision
se my site:
http://geocities.com/porat_y/mypage.html
take the lead nuc
the chemically active are only at the front and backpoles
the other ones are along the nuc sides
sort of a caterpilars legs streched sideways
the beta radiation
is only from the front and back poles chain of orbitals
(the elctron is at the edge of the chain !!)
i checked it thorouhgly
and it fits exactly the data i got from the liberaries .
there are many others
actually
if you squize the Atom to hard
you can get much more then 92 !!
that i smy prediction
since no one untill now tried tosquise it
beyound 92
guess why ??
it is the chaines of paradigm
ie no ne will dream about extrcating more than 92
while th e paradigm told him there are no more than 92 !!
and i guess btw that
even extarction 92 is a very difficult elusive job !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
electron capture
----------------
sorry typo
the Lead Atom is 'alaldged' to have 82 electrons
so please read it for lead
as if i wrote 82 and not 92
(i rely too much on my free memory ... (:-)
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
22 Sep 2007 07:17:33 PM |
|
|
On Sep 22, 8:58 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:10 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
*the assumption that the number of electrons
around' a heavy nuc -- are the same as the number
of Protons in it IS WRONG !!
OK, so how many electrons does a neutral
atom of U-238 contain (92 protons, 146 neutrons
in nucleus)?
- Randy
----------------
i dint try to folow it exactly
anyway
it is not exactlt 92!!
actaully very different from 92!
What is the charge on 92 protons?
What is the charge on 92 electrons?
How do you put 92 protons together with 92 electrons
and get something that is not neutral?
Where are you getting this nonsense from?
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
23 Sep 2007 02:45:03 AM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 8:58 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 7:10 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 12:25 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
*the assumption that the number of electrons
around' a heavy nuc -- are the same as the number
of Protons in it IS WRONG !!
OK, so how many electrons does a neutral
atom of U-238 contain (92 protons, 146 neutrons
in nucleus)?
- Randy
----------------
i dint try to folow it exactly
anyway
it is not exactlt 92!!
actaully very different from 92!
What is the charge on 92 protons?
What is the charge on 92 electrons?
How do you put 92 protons together with 92 electrons
and get something that is not neutral?
Where are you getting this nonsense from?
- Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------------
if you wil get ridd of paradigm that
**all the Protons in the nuc are positively charged'
you might understand it
one of my surprising finding afrwer my long resarch
of manyyears was the above finding!
it was difficult even fior me to diget it
but at last a realised it by acumulation
of exterimental dta and some thinking
how can i bridge the seemingly contradictions
and the above was the sulusion that setled it !!
my explanation is that during the fusionprocess
9the binding process of Protons with others
**it looses its electric charge**
it referes to the inner protons in the nuc
not to those of its perifery
because if you atke the Proton as a chain of orbitals
(and niot jsut one orbilal or a sphere)
the charge is at the edge of that chain
and particlees ar emaking bonds
by theit edge orbitals and a re 'loosing some of them'
during bond process
(that is the binding energy losses )
and i found them exactly as acting
all laong the periodictable
i ddint show it in my site
because of secrecy reasons
those who ahve my book could see them
yet i cam tell you one of those
fascinationg findigs
all the bond losses are of a quantum character
ie some pyramide structure' of constant magb\nitues
and if you go down that 'pyramif
you might find
**one basic quntity that is indivisible ** !!!
and the nest surprise is
that the electron is a good candidate for that
smallest "indivisible" object !!
may be electron posutron etc but a very definit
family of aprticles
that is why i supoport the
'all electron theory'
that assumes that all mater is built of somemore vaery nasic
'brick stone '(much samaler than 'quarks' !!.....
and enough untill this point !! (:-)
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
23 Sep 2007 03:04:21 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190533503.820735.13180@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
if you wil get ridd of paradigm that
**all the Protons in the nuc are positively charged'
You're obviously a complet idiot. A proton that is not positively charged
is not a proton (by definition)
[snip crap from idiot porat]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
23 Sep 2007 05:19:10 AM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 10:04 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190533503.820735.13180@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
if you wil get ridd of paradigm that
**all the Protons in the nuc are positively charged'
You're obviously a complet idiot. A proton that is not positively charged
is not a proton (by definition)
[snip crap from idiot porat]
--------------
hello hello
the psychopath Superfarter by definition
has something important
to contribute to this discussion
byw i wonder how do you call a hadron that
is changing chrge by say electron capture
or by beta emmition .....
it is probabl changing a sign on it
and that sign has prepared for hinself
a double face thjat can be flipped quickly
from side to side .... (:-)
may be a Hadron can flippits 'entity'
by electron beta emition or electron cupture
but a psychopath will bever will ??
he will always remain a psychopth that knowes everything
in physics !! and i s commited to teach the whole world
his absolute Superfart disturbed knowlwgge (:-)
so pease by pass the personal enemy psychopath
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
23 Sep 2007 06:36:23 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190542750.763957.139360@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 10:04 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190533503.820735.13180@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
if you wil get ridd of paradigm that
**all the Protons in the nuc are positively charged'
You're obviously a complet idiot. A proton that is not positively
charged
is not a proton (by definition)
[snip crap from idiot porat]
--------------
hello hello
the psychopath Superfarter by definition
has something important
to contribute to this discussion
Yes. . its called physics
so pease by pass the personal enemy psychopath
So please ***** until you either learn some physics or die. I think the
second will hapen first.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 02:30:01 AM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 1:36 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190542750.763957.139360@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 10:04 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190533503.820735.13180@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
if you wil get ridd of paradigm that
**all the Protons in the nuc are positively charged'
You're obviously a complet idiot. A proton that is not positively
charged
is not a proton (by definition)
[snip crap from idiot porat]
--------------
hello hello
the psychopath Superfarter by definition
has something important
to contribute to this discussion
Yes. . its called physics
so pease by pass the personal enemy psychopath
So please ***** until you either learn some physics or die. I think the
second will hapen first.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------------
Nazi pig ***** pstchopath moron
and Superfertz
-----------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 02:46:31 AM |
|
|
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190619001.607526.140220@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 1:36 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190542750.763957.139360@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 10:04 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190533503.820735.13180@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
if you wil get ridd of paradigm that
**all the Protons in the nuc are positively charged'
You're obviously a complet idiot. A proton that is not positively
charged
is not a proton (by definition)
[snip crap from idiot porat]
--------------
hello hello
the psychopath Superfarter by definition
has something important
to contribute to this discussion
Yes. . its called physics
so pease by pass the personal enemy psychopath
So please ***** until you either learn some physics or die. I think
the
second will hapen first.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------------
Nazi pig ***** pstchopath moron
and Superfertz
Fuckwit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 02:50:23 AM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 9:46 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190619001.607526.140220@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 1:36 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190542750.763957.139360@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 10:04 am, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190533503.820735.13180@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
if you wil get ridd of paradigm that
**all the Protons in the nuc are positively charged'
You're obviously a complet idiot. A proton that is not positively
charged
is not a proton (by definition)
[snip crap from idiot porat]
--------------
hello hello
the psychopath Superfarter by definition
has something important
to contribute to this discussion
Yes. . its called physics
so pease by pass the personal enemy psychopath
So please ***** until you either learn some physics or die. I think
the
second will hapen first.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------------
Nazi pig ***** pstchopath moron
and Superfertz
Fuckwit- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
(:-)
----------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 07:22:40 AM |
|
|
Y Porat "Electron shell" "Electron cloud" structure. We now thing of
the electron no longer as like a planet orbiting the Sun We use the
term "smeared out" That way its smearing can answer how an electron can
be in two places at once,and how two electrons can occupy the same spot.
Its quantum weirdness. Its tricky stuff Bert
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: Formula for figuring electron shells/orbitals? |
24 Sep 2007 08:00:13 AM |
|
|
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbertglazier@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26650-46F7AC10-1879@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net...
Y Porat "Electron shell" "Electron cloud" structure. We now thing of
the electron no longer as like a planet orbiting the Sun We use the
term "smeared out" That way its smearing can answer how an electron can
be in two places at once,and how two electrons can occupy the same spot.
Its quantum weirdness. Its tricky stuff Bert
No use talking to Y.Porat .. he's a fool
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
