Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2 
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Fri Nov 28, 2014 2:32 am
Bromine
Atomic Number: 35
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
Since those “inner” protons are now pushed off the axis, they no longer add to the density as before. Like additions to the carousel level, they now subtract from density. Being off the axis, they are now spinning with the carousel, and they act like it in many ways. The primary way they act like the carousel level is that they feel a centrifugal effect from the nuclear spin, and the more protons you have in positions like that, the more centrifugal effect. This is why the density goes down for Selenium and Bromine.
Does this strange configuration explain why Bromine is a liquid? It does. Notice that if Bromine had to bond to itself using axis or carousel positions, it couldn't do it. It would have to be a gas, like the noble gasses. It doesn't have any openings out there, you see. All the holes are filled completely. So Bromine can only bond to itself via the inner level. Elements can do that, provided the inner level isn't closed tightly as we saw with Copper. Copper isn't going to be bonding to itself via the inner level holes. But Bromine has three positions open. Each hole where we see a black disk is only half full, so we have three openings. So Bromine can bond back to back on the west side here. Black to black will create a strong bond, which gives us the diatom of Br2. But after that, we have a problem. To bond beyond the diatom, Bromine has to try to bond on the east side of this nucleus. As you can see, it can do that only on the top. No plug can be created on the bottom, since blue meets blue. There are no openings on the bottom. This leaves half the bond hanging, which is a weak bond. Hence the liquid state.
Atomic Number: 35
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
Since those “inner” protons are now pushed off the axis, they no longer add to the density as before. Like additions to the carousel level, they now subtract from density. Being off the axis, they are now spinning with the carousel, and they act like it in many ways. The primary way they act like the carousel level is that they feel a centrifugal effect from the nuclear spin, and the more protons you have in positions like that, the more centrifugal effect. This is why the density goes down for Selenium and Bromine.
Does this strange configuration explain why Bromine is a liquid? It does. Notice that if Bromine had to bond to itself using axis or carousel positions, it couldn't do it. It would have to be a gas, like the noble gasses. It doesn't have any openings out there, you see. All the holes are filled completely. So Bromine can only bond to itself via the inner level. Elements can do that, provided the inner level isn't closed tightly as we saw with Copper. Copper isn't going to be bonding to itself via the inner level holes. But Bromine has three positions open. Each hole where we see a black disk is only half full, so we have three openings. So Bromine can bond back to back on the west side here. Black to black will create a strong bond, which gives us the diatom of Br2. But after that, we have a problem. To bond beyond the diatom, Bromine has to try to bond on the east side of this nucleus. As you can see, it can do that only on the top. No plug can be created on the bottom, since blue meets blue. There are no openings on the bottom. This leaves half the bond hanging, which is a weak bond. Hence the liquid state.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:11 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:38 am
Krypton
Atomic Number: 36
243a. Helium4 a Boson? No.
http://milesmathis.com/helboson.pdf
231. HOW TO BUILD URANIUM
http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf
Atomic Number: 36
243a. Helium4 a Boson? No.
http://milesmathis.com/helboson.pdf
231. HOW TO BUILD URANIUM
http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:12 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:43 am
Rubidium
Atomic Number: 37
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
Now, the question becomes, why can't Lanthanum be built by simply putting a proton in the carousel level, as we would do with Yttrium? It can't, because Yttrium isn't built that way either. As it turns out, Yttrium also has a contraction problem, one the mainstream can't easily explain and doesn't often tell you about. Yttrium doesn't fit in the contraction sequence of Period 5. It has an atomic radius of 180, when it should have an atomic radius of about 185. This indicates that Yttrium is not composed from Krypton, like Rubidium and Strontium are. Like the Lanthanides, its atomic radius indicates a variant structure. But let's go back to Lanthanum to discover its structure first.
Atomic Number: 37
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
Now, the question becomes, why can't Lanthanum be built by simply putting a proton in the carousel level, as we would do with Yttrium? It can't, because Yttrium isn't built that way either. As it turns out, Yttrium also has a contraction problem, one the mainstream can't easily explain and doesn't often tell you about. Yttrium doesn't fit in the contraction sequence of Period 5. It has an atomic radius of 180, when it should have an atomic radius of about 185. This indicates that Yttrium is not composed from Krypton, like Rubidium and Strontium are. Like the Lanthanides, its atomic radius indicates a variant structure. But let's go back to Lanthanum to discover its structure first.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:14 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:45 am
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:16 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:49 am
Yttrium
Atomic Number: 39
233. The LANTHANIDES and breaking madelung rule
http://milesmathis.com/lanthan.pdf
You can now see why Scandium is +3. It is explained at the primary level by the protons, not the electrons. Yttrium and Lanthanum have the same diagram as Scandium, but with Krypton and Xenon bases, respectively. You can also see why we are told we have “a single valence electron in the d shell.” There is no d shell, as I have shown, but the proton on top in my diagram acts to achieve the same thing. That single proton sticking out in the wind acts as the valence.
Noble Gases (Full carousel Alphas)
Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
Atomic Number: 39
233. The LANTHANIDES and breaking madelung rule
http://milesmathis.com/lanthan.pdf
You can now see why Scandium is +3. It is explained at the primary level by the protons, not the electrons. Yttrium and Lanthanum have the same diagram as Scandium, but with Krypton and Xenon bases, respectively. You can also see why we are told we have “a single valence electron in the d shell.” There is no d shell, as I have shown, but the proton on top in my diagram acts to achieve the same thing. That single proton sticking out in the wind acts as the valence.
Noble Gases (Full carousel Alphas)
Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:17 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:55 am
Zirconium
Atomic Number: 40
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
Atomic Number: 40
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:32 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:58 am
Niobium
Atomic Number: 41
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
?
That is how the strongest magnet in the world is created. Of course, by analogy, Samarium and Cobalt would require a linkage through both Molybdenum and Boron. Molybdenum would be forced by the applied magnetic field to move its outer protons to the axis, where it would then have three on each end. This three-prong could then plug into both the two-prong of Cobalt and the four-prong of Samarium. If we then needed a link between three and two, we could use Boron as above. Fluorine might work even better than Boron, although being a gas would make it harder to cook into the mix by the current method. The Sm-Co linkage might also be made through Niobium and Beryllium, to similar effect, though of course in that case you would have to make sure your applied field was putting Niobium into the mix with the correct pole up. But since the current method has no problem aligning Boron in the right way, Niobium would probably align the right way naturally as well. These are some off-the-cuff suggestions, and they may create an even stronger magnet than the ones we have now. Having the diagrams helps me see these things more quickly and easily than the mainstream can.
---------
‘Accident’ in lab creates super motor
AN ELECTRIC SCOOTER
with a top speed of 50mph and a range of more than 5(W) miles has been developed by a Japan ese scientist who accidentally discovered what he claims is the’ world’s most magnetic material.
To date, most of the research on electric vehicles has concentrated on developing super- efficient batteries in an attempt to maximise their range and power to weight ratio. How. ever, until now even the most advanced vehicles have required a small battalion of such batteries to achieve a modest performance. The new scooter. developed by SciexCorporat ion of Japan runs on just four ordinary 12-volt car batteries.
“Almost everyone has worked on the battery end of the problem,” says its inventor, Yasunori Takahashi. ‘‘I thought: why not look at the other end — the motor?”
His breakthrough in electromagnetic technology came a few years ago while he was experimenting with new magnetic alloys. Omie of his laboratory staff misread his instructions and added the wrong element to the mix.
“We Japanese often confuse the Roman letters b and d,” said—T’akahashi, - ‘My technician added neodymium (Nd) instead of niobium (Nb), The t result was extraordinary — suddenly found myself in the presence of the most powerful magnetic material I had ever seen.”
Takahashi subsequently develped a manufacturing system for producing a magnetic powd er that could be formed into anything, from ultra-thin coatings to large permanent magn ets. He now claims to have
produced a magnet with the world’s highest Megagauss Oersted rating — or MgOe. the unit in which magnetism is measured. “Before my discovery, MgQe was the maxim um anyone had achieved; hut my magnet can reach 121) MgOe.” says,Takahashi.
This super-magnetic force is the secret behind the new Sciex scooter’s performance.
Takahashi has redesigned a conventional electric motor and fitted his super-powerful “YT” magnets, resulting in a highly efficient engine that will produce a claimed IS horsep ower from just a few amperes of electricity.
In fact, he claims the motor is so efficient that, when the scooter is throttled back and free-wheeling, the engine becomes a generator, and partly recharges the batteries while on the move, giving the scooter its enormous range.
Michael Laughton. professor of electrical engineering at London University. is imp ressed. “It’s an incredible machine.” lie says. “Takahashi seems, to have developed an extraordinarily efficient electric motor and control system. In principle there’s no reason why it couldn’t he scaled tip br aim electric car.”
Takahashi has a good record in commercial innovation. While at Sony. he developed Beta videotape technology. which became the standard syst em used by the television ind ustry worldwide until it was overtaken by VHS. He n’w has big plans for commercial exploitation of his new magnetic discovery.
‘The YT magnet can he used br any applications where conventional magnets are curr ently uscd — from credit cards to loudspeakers, with a huge potential increase in informal ion-storage capacity and quali ty.” he says.
One novel use for ihc magnet invented by Takahashi is to extend the life of rechargeable batteries. H. magnets have been made into thin inch-wide squares. which, if attached to mobilephone batteries, will double the amount of charge they retain and so last twice as long.
This “battery doubler” is already on the market in Japan where, says Takahashi, the Japanese equivalent of BT has ordered 100,000 of them.
At present the magnetic all oys are manufactured under lic ence in Japan bt last month Takahashi announced his intent ion to setup his primary manuf acturing plant in Britain.
“Britain has lower overh eads than many other count ries and there are hundreds of engineering companies within a few hours’ drive of Lontlon.” he says.
A factory site has already been earmarked In north London. though Takahashi noW requires a £20m investment to develop it properly.
WE SUNDAY TIMES’ 10 DECEMBER 1995
Pulling power: a superior electromagnetic mbtor boosts Sciexs
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/25498
Atomic Number: 41
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
?
That is how the strongest magnet in the world is created. Of course, by analogy, Samarium and Cobalt would require a linkage through both Molybdenum and Boron. Molybdenum would be forced by the applied magnetic field to move its outer protons to the axis, where it would then have three on each end. This three-prong could then plug into both the two-prong of Cobalt and the four-prong of Samarium. If we then needed a link between three and two, we could use Boron as above. Fluorine might work even better than Boron, although being a gas would make it harder to cook into the mix by the current method. The Sm-Co linkage might also be made through Niobium and Beryllium, to similar effect, though of course in that case you would have to make sure your applied field was putting Niobium into the mix with the correct pole up. But since the current method has no problem aligning Boron in the right way, Niobium would probably align the right way naturally as well. These are some off-the-cuff suggestions, and they may create an even stronger magnet than the ones we have now. Having the diagrams helps me see these things more quickly and easily than the mainstream can.
---------
‘Accident’ in lab creates super motor
AN ELECTRIC SCOOTER
with a top speed of 50mph and a range of more than 5(W) miles has been developed by a Japan ese scientist who accidentally discovered what he claims is the’ world’s most magnetic material.
To date, most of the research on electric vehicles has concentrated on developing super- efficient batteries in an attempt to maximise their range and power to weight ratio. How. ever, until now even the most advanced vehicles have required a small battalion of such batteries to achieve a modest performance. The new scooter. developed by SciexCorporat ion of Japan runs on just four ordinary 12-volt car batteries.
“Almost everyone has worked on the battery end of the problem,” says its inventor, Yasunori Takahashi. ‘‘I thought: why not look at the other end — the motor?”
His breakthrough in electromagnetic technology came a few years ago while he was experimenting with new magnetic alloys. Omie of his laboratory staff misread his instructions and added the wrong element to the mix.
“We Japanese often confuse the Roman letters b and d,” said—T’akahashi, - ‘My technician added neodymium (Nd) instead of niobium (Nb), The t result was extraordinary — suddenly found myself in the presence of the most powerful magnetic material I had ever seen.”
Takahashi subsequently develped a manufacturing system for producing a magnetic powd er that could be formed into anything, from ultra-thin coatings to large permanent magn ets. He now claims to have
produced a magnet with the world’s highest Megagauss Oersted rating — or MgOe. the unit in which magnetism is measured. “Before my discovery, MgQe was the maxim um anyone had achieved; hut my magnet can reach 121) MgOe.” says,Takahashi.
This super-magnetic force is the secret behind the new Sciex scooter’s performance.
Takahashi has redesigned a conventional electric motor and fitted his super-powerful “YT” magnets, resulting in a highly efficient engine that will produce a claimed IS horsep ower from just a few amperes of electricity.
In fact, he claims the motor is so efficient that, when the scooter is throttled back and free-wheeling, the engine becomes a generator, and partly recharges the batteries while on the move, giving the scooter its enormous range.
Michael Laughton. professor of electrical engineering at London University. is imp ressed. “It’s an incredible machine.” lie says. “Takahashi seems, to have developed an extraordinarily efficient electric motor and control system. In principle there’s no reason why it couldn’t he scaled tip br aim electric car.”
Takahashi has a good record in commercial innovation. While at Sony. he developed Beta videotape technology. which became the standard syst em used by the television ind ustry worldwide until it was overtaken by VHS. He n’w has big plans for commercial exploitation of his new magnetic discovery.
‘The YT magnet can he used br any applications where conventional magnets are curr ently uscd — from credit cards to loudspeakers, with a huge potential increase in informal ion-storage capacity and quali ty.” he says.
One novel use for ihc magnet invented by Takahashi is to extend the life of rechargeable batteries. H. magnets have been made into thin inch-wide squares. which, if attached to mobilephone batteries, will double the amount of charge they retain and so last twice as long.
This “battery doubler” is already on the market in Japan where, says Takahashi, the Japanese equivalent of BT has ordered 100,000 of them.
At present the magnetic all oys are manufactured under lic ence in Japan bt last month Takahashi announced his intent ion to setup his primary manuf acturing plant in Britain.
“Britain has lower overh eads than many other count ries and there are hundreds of engineering companies within a few hours’ drive of Lontlon.” he says.
A factory site has already been earmarked In north London. though Takahashi noW requires a £20m investment to develop it properly.
WE SUNDAY TIMES’ 10 DECEMBER 1995
Pulling power: a superior electromagnetic mbtor boosts Sciexs
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/25498
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:33 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:03 am
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:33 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:08 am
Technetium
Atomic Number: 43
229. HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEUS without a Strong Force
http://milesmathis.com/stack.html
236. The NUCLEAR SHELL Model of WIGNER
http://milesmathis.com/wig.pdf
?
A further problem is the explanation of Technetium. I have explained the radioactivity of Technetium using those inner holes again. But the old shell model explains Technetium as “the distance from shell-closure.” In other words, the radioactivity must be due to shells that are very open. Is that what we find? Not at all. Technetium has more protons in the outer shell than the six elements before it (Rubidium to Molybdenum), and more nucleons also. Radioactivity has nothing at all to do with shell closure, and I have shown that with my diagrams. We see how naïve previous models must be to suggest open shells are the cause of radioactivity. If that were the case, all group 1 elements would be radioactive.
Atomic Number: 43
229. HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEUS without a Strong Force
http://milesmathis.com/stack.html
236. The NUCLEAR SHELL Model of WIGNER
http://milesmathis.com/wig.pdf
?
A further problem is the explanation of Technetium. I have explained the radioactivity of Technetium using those inner holes again. But the old shell model explains Technetium as “the distance from shell-closure.” In other words, the radioactivity must be due to shells that are very open. Is that what we find? Not at all. Technetium has more protons in the outer shell than the six elements before it (Rubidium to Molybdenum), and more nucleons also. Radioactivity has nothing at all to do with shell closure, and I have shown that with my diagrams. We see how naïve previous models must be to suggest open shells are the cause of radioactivity. If that were the case, all group 1 elements would be radioactive.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:36 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:10 am
Ruthenium
Atomic Number: 44
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
?
If we study the elements with the most stable isotopes, we find much more support for my model. We would expect both Molybdenum and Neodymium to be very stable, since they have semi-complete fourth levels. Tellurium would also be expected to be stable, for the same reason. Ruthenium is a semi-completed fourth level, like Molybdenum, but with the inner level single-filled as well. I discuss Samarium below, and its stability is caused by the same filling of the fourth level. The extreme stability of Dysprosium and Cadmium give us a hint to their structure, leading me to propose they are similar to Tin. Cadmium has the same fourth level as Tin, it just has two less protons below. The stability of Hafnium can be understood once you recognize it is misplaced in group 4. Hafnium should actually be a group 18 variant, making it another completed level. It then is like a larger Tin, but with single protons below instead of alphas.
Atomic Number: 44
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
?
If we study the elements with the most stable isotopes, we find much more support for my model. We would expect both Molybdenum and Neodymium to be very stable, since they have semi-complete fourth levels. Tellurium would also be expected to be stable, for the same reason. Ruthenium is a semi-completed fourth level, like Molybdenum, but with the inner level single-filled as well. I discuss Samarium below, and its stability is caused by the same filling of the fourth level. The extreme stability of Dysprosium and Cadmium give us a hint to their structure, leading me to propose they are similar to Tin. Cadmium has the same fourth level as Tin, it just has two less protons below. The stability of Hafnium can be understood once you recognize it is misplaced in group 4. Hafnium should actually be a group 18 variant, making it another completed level. It then is like a larger Tin, but with single protons below instead of alphas.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:37 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:12 am
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:39 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:13 am
Palladium
Atomic Number: 46
?
Atomic Number: 46
?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:14 am
Silver
Atomic Number: 47
232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
93c. The P-N Junction without Holes
http://milesmathis.com/dope.pdf
[Pay no attention to the skinny disks in Silver: I drew that diagram several years ago, and I tend to draw the disks skinnier in the bigger elements so I can fit more in. Just study the architecture of the nuclei. To see what the disks represent, consult my long paper on nuclear diagramming.]
Both these configurations are conductors because both have a differential bottom to top, along the pole. Both have blue disks bottom and black disks top. That is, two protons bottom and one top. The disks acts like little fans, so what this configuration means is that the charge streams know which way to go. There is a strong potential here for through charge going north. See my paper on Period Four for more on this.
So both configurations are conductors. But they aren't the same sort of conductors because we have many important differences in the architecture, as you see. To start with, while Silver has a strong carousel level, Silicon and Boron don't. Boron has no real carousel level at all (or only the hub), while Silicon only has the vertical alphas. It doesn't have the multiple horizontal protons in the 4th carousel level that Silver has, pulling charge out the nuclear equator. This means that although the conductivity of Si-B isn't as strong as Silver (because Silver has a bigger core and more total channeling), it is more linear. Silver has a transverse or equatorial field that Si-B doesn't. This is why Si-B has a low resistance in the forward direction: once you align your Si-B to the field, the through charge moves through very easily, with little loss by the carousel levels
Atomic Number: 47
232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
93c. The P-N Junction without Holes
http://milesmathis.com/dope.pdf
[Pay no attention to the skinny disks in Silver: I drew that diagram several years ago, and I tend to draw the disks skinnier in the bigger elements so I can fit more in. Just study the architecture of the nuclei. To see what the disks represent, consult my long paper on nuclear diagramming.]
Both these configurations are conductors because both have a differential bottom to top, along the pole. Both have blue disks bottom and black disks top. That is, two protons bottom and one top. The disks acts like little fans, so what this configuration means is that the charge streams know which way to go. There is a strong potential here for through charge going north. See my paper on Period Four for more on this.
So both configurations are conductors. But they aren't the same sort of conductors because we have many important differences in the architecture, as you see. To start with, while Silver has a strong carousel level, Silicon and Boron don't. Boron has no real carousel level at all (or only the hub), while Silicon only has the vertical alphas. It doesn't have the multiple horizontal protons in the 4th carousel level that Silver has, pulling charge out the nuclear equator. This means that although the conductivity of Si-B isn't as strong as Silver (because Silver has a bigger core and more total channeling), it is more linear. Silver has a transverse or equatorial field that Si-B doesn't. This is why Si-B has a low resistance in the forward direction: once you align your Si-B to the field, the through charge moves through very easily, with little loss by the carousel levels
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:41 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:20 am
Cadmium
Atomic Number: 48
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
?
Atomic Number: 48
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:43 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:22 am
Indium
Atomic Number: 49
231. HOW TO BUILD URANIUM
http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf
?
In fact, Uranium can also be made from a Tin base, since that is how we get Technetium and Rhodium as products in fission. The star builds Uranium from Tin + Molybdenum, with a triple proton link created at any of the six corners. This is a stronger link than the Krypton + Barium link, and it explains why U238 is much more stable than U235. It is U238 that is made from Tin + Molybdenum. If you study the diagram below, you will see why the link is stronger. Tin has almost the same diagram as Molybdenum, but with two protons in each of the outer holes instead of one. This means that wherever we choose to put the link, we will have a three-pronged link. When U238 splits, the Molybdenum may take away an extra prong, making it Technetium. In that case, Indium may be the other product. The prongs can break off in any number of ways, giving us Ruthenium and Cadmium, for instance.
Atomic Number: 49
231. HOW TO BUILD URANIUM
http://milesmathis.com/uranium.pdf
?
In fact, Uranium can also be made from a Tin base, since that is how we get Technetium and Rhodium as products in fission. The star builds Uranium from Tin + Molybdenum, with a triple proton link created at any of the six corners. This is a stronger link than the Krypton + Barium link, and it explains why U238 is much more stable than U235. It is U238 that is made from Tin + Molybdenum. If you study the diagram below, you will see why the link is stronger. Tin has almost the same diagram as Molybdenum, but with two protons in each of the outer holes instead of one. This means that wherever we choose to put the link, we will have a three-pronged link. When U238 splits, the Molybdenum may take away an extra prong, making it Technetium. In that case, Indium may be the other product. The prongs can break off in any number of ways, giving us Ruthenium and Cadmium, for instance.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:44 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:23 am
Tin
Atomic Number: 50
235. MAGIC NUMBERS in the Periodic Table
A critique of the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula, with nuclear diagrams.
http://milesmathis.com/semf.pdf
Atomic Number: 50
235. MAGIC NUMBERS in the Periodic Table
A critique of the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula, with nuclear diagrams.
http://milesmathis.com/semf.pdf
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:54 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:24 am
Antimony
Atomic Number: 51
?
?
Atomic Number: 51
?
?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:26 am
Tellurium
Atomic Number: 52
235. MAGIC NUMBERS in the Periodic Table
A critique of the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula, with nuclear diagrams.
http://milesmathis.com/semf.pdf
Atomic Number: 52
235. MAGIC NUMBERS in the Periodic Table
A critique of the Semi-Empirical Mass Formula, with nuclear diagrams.
http://milesmathis.com/semf.pdf
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:28 am
Iodine
Atomic Number: 53
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
?
To see how it works above Xenon, we actually have to start at Krypton. Krypton is built like Argon, but with Beryllium blocks instead of alphas. But if we start filling in holes like we did with Rubidium, we find that we can add four protons in each hole, not just two like we would have with Potassium. So when we get up to Tellurium, we have a balanced but incomplete structure. We have six outer holes that are only half full, as I showed above. This means that all elements above Iodine have two possible structures. They can be made with Beryllium blocks or Carbon blocks. In other words, they can be built up from a Krypton base or a Xenon base.
Atomic Number: 53
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
?
To see how it works above Xenon, we actually have to start at Krypton. Krypton is built like Argon, but with Beryllium blocks instead of alphas. But if we start filling in holes like we did with Rubidium, we find that we can add four protons in each hole, not just two like we would have with Potassium. So when we get up to Tellurium, we have a balanced but incomplete structure. We have six outer holes that are only half full, as I showed above. This means that all elements above Iodine have two possible structures. They can be made with Beryllium blocks or Carbon blocks. In other words, they can be built up from a Krypton base or a Xenon base.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:56 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:31 am
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:56 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:33 am
Caesium
Atomic Number: 55
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
Atomic Number: 55
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:58 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:34 am
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:58 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:37 am
Lanthanum
Atomic Number: 57
?
?
Atomic Number: 57
?
?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:31 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:41 am
Cerium
Atomic Number: 58
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
233. The LANTHANIDES and breaking madelung rule
The Lanthanides fill level 4, but they cross sub-shells c, n, and t. There is no level f.
In this way we can explain why the Madelung rule is false. The Madelung rule tells us that we fill sub-shells in order of energy levels. Unfortunately, several of the Lanthanides break the Madelung rule by filling a 5d place before 4f is full. The current model can't explain this, but my diagram does so. Cerium is simply the diagram above, adding a proton to the bottom hole. This makes Cerium quite stable and “square”, which is why it is the most abundant of the Rare Earths. The carousel tends to spin more quickly than the nucleus spins the other way (although it can do both), so the t level tends to be the valence level. However, in some circumstances (cold, for instance) the valence is 4, for obvious reasons. Regardless, we can see why the Madelung rule breaks down here: there is no f level or d level, so the rule cannot distinguish them. Cerium is filling holes with protons to maintain the optimum balance, not to sort energy levels. The last proton that goes in (and therefore its electron also) will have a greater energy than the next to last, simply because my t level has more angular momentum than my c level. All the rules have to be revamped. The Madelung rule is fair guess in some situations, but it is basically false. It is false because the sub-shells it is tracking don't exist.
Atomic Number: 58
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
233. The LANTHANIDES and breaking madelung rule
The Lanthanides fill level 4, but they cross sub-shells c, n, and t. There is no level f.
In this way we can explain why the Madelung rule is false. The Madelung rule tells us that we fill sub-shells in order of energy levels. Unfortunately, several of the Lanthanides break the Madelung rule by filling a 5d place before 4f is full. The current model can't explain this, but my diagram does so. Cerium is simply the diagram above, adding a proton to the bottom hole. This makes Cerium quite stable and “square”, which is why it is the most abundant of the Rare Earths. The carousel tends to spin more quickly than the nucleus spins the other way (although it can do both), so the t level tends to be the valence level. However, in some circumstances (cold, for instance) the valence is 4, for obvious reasons. Regardless, we can see why the Madelung rule breaks down here: there is no f level or d level, so the rule cannot distinguish them. Cerium is filling holes with protons to maintain the optimum balance, not to sort energy levels. The last proton that goes in (and therefore its electron also) will have a greater energy than the next to last, simply because my t level has more angular momentum than my c level. All the rules have to be revamped. The Madelung rule is fair guess in some situations, but it is basically false. It is false because the sub-shells it is tracking don't exist.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:00 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:45 am
Praesodymium
Atomic Number: 59
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
OK, now let's return to the Lanthanide Contraction. The Lanthanide Contraction is actually misnamed, because the peculiar thing about the Lanthanides is that they don't contract much at all as we go from Lanthanum to Lutetium. Lanthanum has an atomic radius of 187, Cerium drops to 182, but then the Lanthanides contract very little after that. Praesodymium stays at about 182, we drop to 180 by Samarium, 176 by Holmium, and Lutetium is still 174. So we drop only eight points from Cerium to Lutetium. That is 14 positions. Compared to the contraction of the first three Groups in any Period, that is very little contraction.
Atomic Number: 59
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
OK, now let's return to the Lanthanide Contraction. The Lanthanide Contraction is actually misnamed, because the peculiar thing about the Lanthanides is that they don't contract much at all as we go from Lanthanum to Lutetium. Lanthanum has an atomic radius of 187, Cerium drops to 182, but then the Lanthanides contract very little after that. Praesodymium stays at about 182, we drop to 180 by Samarium, 176 by Holmium, and Lutetium is still 174. So we drop only eight points from Cerium to Lutetium. That is 14 positions. Compared to the contraction of the first three Groups in any Period, that is very little contraction.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:02 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:49 am
Neodymium
Atomic Number: 60
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
Since the mainstream has long thought that Neodymium was built up from Xenon [being Xe 4f 4, 6s2], it has completely mistaken its configuration. But in a more recent paper on the Lanthanides, I have discovered they are all composed of a core of 45 protons, not 54. The green disk indicates a 5-stack, with a proton sandwiched between two alphas. This is why Neodymium acts nothing like Group 6 elements such as Chromium. We know it acts more like Group, and the diagram above tells you why.
But if Neodymium is not the greatest candidate for magnetism by itself, how does it end up making the strongest magnet in compound? The answer is in the composition of the Neodymium magnet. When the compound is formed, it is formed in a strongly directionalized charge field, and that manufactured field is strong enough to re-arrange these outer protons in the fourth level. The carousel level gives up
its protons to the axial level, and we end up with all proton on the axis, like this:
That is a better magnet than Mercury, because although Mercury has four protons in each axial hole, it also has four in the carousel holes. So Mercury is drawing charge heavily to the carousel level and emitting it equatorially. NeodymiumII isn't conflicted like that, and it can conduct all its charge through the axis, in both directions. Samarium and Gadolinium have been rearranged in the same way, also creating strong magnets. Since both can be forced to have all protons top and bottom, they would seem to be even better candidates for magnets than NdII, and the only reason they aren't is that NdII can be linked to Period 4 magnets like Iron or Cobalt using Boron, while the others can't.
You see the trick is to create the linkage between the three protons of NdII and the two protons of Iron. Since Boron has five protons, it can provide that linkage. But a Samarium/Cobalt magnet lacks that linkage, and its bond is thereby weaker. It is about as strong, but not as sturdy. Obviously, Samarium/Cobalt needs a 2 to 4 link, which means it would need a double facilitator. This may have been tried, I don't know. I know Samarium has been doped with Carbon in superconductors, and I suspect the engineers may have tried Carbon as the facilitator between Samarium and Cobalt, due to the fact that the six in Carbon might link SmCo just as the five in Boron linked NdFe. But what they need is Molybdenum (or perhaps Molybdenum and Boron in sequence). I will show you why. Boron works between Neodymium and Iron because this plug sequence is created:
Atomic Number: 60
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
Since the mainstream has long thought that Neodymium was built up from Xenon [being Xe 4f 4, 6s2], it has completely mistaken its configuration. But in a more recent paper on the Lanthanides, I have discovered they are all composed of a core of 45 protons, not 54. The green disk indicates a 5-stack, with a proton sandwiched between two alphas. This is why Neodymium acts nothing like Group 6 elements such as Chromium. We know it acts more like Group, and the diagram above tells you why.
But if Neodymium is not the greatest candidate for magnetism by itself, how does it end up making the strongest magnet in compound? The answer is in the composition of the Neodymium magnet. When the compound is formed, it is formed in a strongly directionalized charge field, and that manufactured field is strong enough to re-arrange these outer protons in the fourth level. The carousel level gives up
its protons to the axial level, and we end up with all proton on the axis, like this:
That is a better magnet than Mercury, because although Mercury has four protons in each axial hole, it also has four in the carousel holes. So Mercury is drawing charge heavily to the carousel level and emitting it equatorially. NeodymiumII isn't conflicted like that, and it can conduct all its charge through the axis, in both directions. Samarium and Gadolinium have been rearranged in the same way, also creating strong magnets. Since both can be forced to have all protons top and bottom, they would seem to be even better candidates for magnets than NdII, and the only reason they aren't is that NdII can be linked to Period 4 magnets like Iron or Cobalt using Boron, while the others can't.
You see the trick is to create the linkage between the three protons of NdII and the two protons of Iron. Since Boron has five protons, it can provide that linkage. But a Samarium/Cobalt magnet lacks that linkage, and its bond is thereby weaker. It is about as strong, but not as sturdy. Obviously, Samarium/Cobalt needs a 2 to 4 link, which means it would need a double facilitator. This may have been tried, I don't know. I know Samarium has been doped with Carbon in superconductors, and I suspect the engineers may have tried Carbon as the facilitator between Samarium and Cobalt, due to the fact that the six in Carbon might link SmCo just as the five in Boron linked NdFe. But what they need is Molybdenum (or perhaps Molybdenum and Boron in sequence). I will show you why. Boron works between Neodymium and Iron because this plug sequence is created:
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:05 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:56 am
Promethium
Atomic Number: 61
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
?
Of course this main analysis applies to Promethium as well, since Pm is also group seven, or seven numbers above the noble gases. I have shown why seven is the bad number of the Periodic Table. Promethium has these same interior holes that have to be filled together or not at all.
Also notice that my diagrams for Technetium and Promethium confirm their known hexagonal structure, since we have six vertices.
Atomic Number: 61
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
?
Of course this main analysis applies to Promethium as well, since Pm is also group seven, or seven numbers above the noble gases. I have shown why seven is the bad number of the Periodic Table. Promethium has these same interior holes that have to be filled together or not at all.
Also notice that my diagrams for Technetium and Promethium confirm their known hexagonal structure, since we have six vertices.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:06 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:59 am
Samarium
Atomic Number: 62
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
?
If we study the elements with the most stable isotopes, we find much more support for my model. We would expect both Molybdenum and Neodymium to be very stable, since they have semi-complete fourth levels. Tellurium would also be expected to be stable, for the same reason. Ruthenium is a semi-completed fourth level, like Molybdenum, but with the inner level single-filled as well. I discuss Samarium below, and its stability is caused by the same filling of the fourth level. The extreme stability of Dysprosium and Cadmium give us a hint to their structure, leading me to propose they are similar to Tin. Cadmium has the same fourth level as Tin, it just has two less protons below. The stability of Hafnium can be understood once you recognize it is misplaced in group 4. Hafnium should actually be a group 18 variant, making it another completed level. It then is like a larger Tin, but with single protons below instead of alphas
Atomic Number: 62
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
?
If we study the elements with the most stable isotopes, we find much more support for my model. We would expect both Molybdenum and Neodymium to be very stable, since they have semi-complete fourth levels. Tellurium would also be expected to be stable, for the same reason. Ruthenium is a semi-completed fourth level, like Molybdenum, but with the inner level single-filled as well. I discuss Samarium below, and its stability is caused by the same filling of the fourth level. The extreme stability of Dysprosium and Cadmium give us a hint to their structure, leading me to propose they are similar to Tin. Cadmium has the same fourth level as Tin, it just has two less protons below. The stability of Hafnium can be understood once you recognize it is misplaced in group 4. Hafnium should actually be a group 18 variant, making it another completed level. It then is like a larger Tin, but with single protons below instead of alphas
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:06 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:01 am
Europium
Atomic Number: 63
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
We have more evidence of my diagrams from Europium, whose density goes way down compared to Samarium. That is because Samarium has gone all blue in the inner levels, with two protons on both sides of each inner hole. That only gives us four parcels of charge through a hole that can take five, but remember, this 5-stack contains a single proton, and that proton is not part of an alpha. This means that there is charge leakage around that inner proton (in the sandwich), so the 5-stack can't really channel 5 proton's worth of charge. The inner proton channels, but it doesn't spin up the charge a fifth amount. So the charge strength of the 5-stack stays at 4. Therefore, Europium is actually at its inner limit. It can't put any more protons in the inner levels. So it switches to a different plan, one more like we saw with Dysprosium:
We can see why that is considerably less dense, since it has more mass out in the 4th level and less on the axis. We can also see that Europium now has enough protons to work with that it can bump up all the numbers in the 4thlevel by one. In this way, it avoids having the same number at each pole. Instead of 1 North and two South, it has 2 north and 3 South. That solves the problem of equal charge.
This means that once again Europium isn't doing what it is doing to find a +3 oxidation number. That is just a side-effect of a deeper mechanics.
Atomic Number: 63
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
We have more evidence of my diagrams from Europium, whose density goes way down compared to Samarium. That is because Samarium has gone all blue in the inner levels, with two protons on both sides of each inner hole. That only gives us four parcels of charge through a hole that can take five, but remember, this 5-stack contains a single proton, and that proton is not part of an alpha. This means that there is charge leakage around that inner proton (in the sandwich), so the 5-stack can't really channel 5 proton's worth of charge. The inner proton channels, but it doesn't spin up the charge a fifth amount. So the charge strength of the 5-stack stays at 4. Therefore, Europium is actually at its inner limit. It can't put any more protons in the inner levels. So it switches to a different plan, one more like we saw with Dysprosium:
We can see why that is considerably less dense, since it has more mass out in the 4th level and less on the axis. We can also see that Europium now has enough protons to work with that it can bump up all the numbers in the 4thlevel by one. In this way, it avoids having the same number at each pole. Instead of 1 North and two South, it has 2 north and 3 South. That solves the problem of equal charge.
This means that once again Europium isn't doing what it is doing to find a +3 oxidation number. That is just a side-effect of a deeper mechanics.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:08 am; edited 4 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:02 am
Gadolinium
Atomic Number: 64
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
?
That is a better magnet than Mercury, because although Mercury has four protons in each axial hole, it also has four in the carousel holes. So Mercury is drawing charge heavily to the carousel level and emitting it equatorially. NeodymiumII isn't conflicted like that, and it can conduct all its charge through the axis, in both directions. Samarium and Gadolinium have been rearranged in the same way, also creating strong magnets. Since both can be forced to have all protons top and bottom, they would seem to be even better candidates for magnets than NdII, and the only reason they aren't is that NdII can be linked to Period 4 magnets like Iron or Cobalt using Boron, while the others can't.
Atomic Number: 64
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
?
That is a better magnet than Mercury, because although Mercury has four protons in each axial hole, it also has four in the carousel holes. So Mercury is drawing charge heavily to the carousel level and emitting it equatorially. NeodymiumII isn't conflicted like that, and it can conduct all its charge through the axis, in both directions. Samarium and Gadolinium have been rearranged in the same way, also creating strong magnets. Since both can be forced to have all protons top and bottom, they would seem to be even better candidates for magnets than NdII, and the only reason they aren't is that NdII can be linked to Period 4 magnets like Iron or Cobalt using Boron, while the others can't.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:09 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:04 am
Terbium
Atomic Number: 65
240a. Electron Bonding is a myth
http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf
?
Now let us look at electronegativity. Current theory tells us that atoms have to have a different electronegativity to bond, but “electronegativity” is just a word. Up to now it has explained nothing, its has just assigned a term to a difference whose cause is unknown. Electronegativity cannot be measured directly. It also doesn't follow any logical pattern on the Periodic Table, given current theory. It generally runs from low to high across the table, but there are many exceptions (Hydrogen, Zinc, Cadmium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and the entire 6th period, for instance). In fact, electronegativity is simply calculated after the fact, and it has no mechanics behind it at all. We can see this clearly at Wikipedia, where it is admitted:
To calculate Pauling electronegativity for an element, it is necessary to have data on the dissociation energies of at least two types of covalent bond formed by that element.
That is the definition of post hoc. In other words, the math is pushed to match the data, and has no predictive qualities. Pauling was trying to build models without the charge field, and with the wrong quantum mechanics, so all his calculations were doomed.
Atomic Number: 65
240a. Electron Bonding is a myth
http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf
?
Now let us look at electronegativity. Current theory tells us that atoms have to have a different electronegativity to bond, but “electronegativity” is just a word. Up to now it has explained nothing, its has just assigned a term to a difference whose cause is unknown. Electronegativity cannot be measured directly. It also doesn't follow any logical pattern on the Periodic Table, given current theory. It generally runs from low to high across the table, but there are many exceptions (Hydrogen, Zinc, Cadmium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and the entire 6th period, for instance). In fact, electronegativity is simply calculated after the fact, and it has no mechanics behind it at all. We can see this clearly at Wikipedia, where it is admitted:
To calculate Pauling electronegativity for an element, it is necessary to have data on the dissociation energies of at least two types of covalent bond formed by that element.
That is the definition of post hoc. In other words, the math is pushed to match the data, and has no predictive qualities. Pauling was trying to build models without the charge field, and with the wrong quantum mechanics, so all his calculations were doomed.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:31 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:06 am
Dysprosium
Atomic Number: 66
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
Atomic Number: 66
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:35 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:07 am
Holmium
Atomic Number: 67
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
?
OK, now let's return to the Lanthanide Contraction. The Lanthanide Contraction is actually misnamed, because the peculiar thing about the Lanthanides is that they don't contract much at all as we go from Lanthanum to Lutetium. Lanthanum has an atomic radius of 187, Cerium drops to 182, but then the Lanthanides contract very little after that. Praesodymium stays at about 182, we drop to 180 by Samarium, 176 by Holmium, and Lutetium is still 174. So we drop only eight points from Cerium to Lutetium. That is 14 positions. Compared to the contraction of the first three Groups in any Period, that is very little contraction.
Before we go on, I want to address a question my readers may have here. Someone might say, “why are the radii getting smaller as the nuclei are getting bigger? Isn't that counterintuitive?” Well, you have to remember that we are looking at atomic radius here, not nuclear radius. The atomic radius includes what they think are orbiting electrons. I have shown there are no orbiting electrons, orbiting the entire nucleus. Electrons are orbiting the pole of a specific proton. But we do have distances of electron capture, and that is what the mainstream is really measuring when they give you these atomic radii. That is the radius at which the last electron is captured. It is the radius of the effective charge vortex, in other words. If you think about it, you will see why this radius would get smaller as the nucleus gets bigger. A bigger nucleus recycles a larger and stronger charge field, and that charge field can more easily capture passing electrons. So as the nucleus gains charge strength, the electron capture radius lowers.
You will say, “That is still counterintuitive. Shouldn't a stronger charge field be able to reach further out into the external field, grabbing electrons at a greater distance?” Well, in some ways that visualization is true. The bigger nuclei can reach out and affect particles at a greater distance. But because the field lines are all photon field lines, we have to follow the photons first. Charge is a field of photons. The electrons will travel in that field of photons, like a boat in a stream. So we have to ask, how does a stronger recycled charge field affect those photon field lines? It actually hugs them closer to the nucleus. A more powerful intake vortex pulls the same field line lower. So we should study a given electron following a given field line. With a smaller nucleus, that field line will be further from the nucleus. If we suddenly make the nucleus larger and more powerful, keeping the same electron on the same field line, both will drop lower, closer to the nucleus. That is the cause of the apparent orbital contraction.
Atomic Number: 67
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
?
OK, now let's return to the Lanthanide Contraction. The Lanthanide Contraction is actually misnamed, because the peculiar thing about the Lanthanides is that they don't contract much at all as we go from Lanthanum to Lutetium. Lanthanum has an atomic radius of 187, Cerium drops to 182, but then the Lanthanides contract very little after that. Praesodymium stays at about 182, we drop to 180 by Samarium, 176 by Holmium, and Lutetium is still 174. So we drop only eight points from Cerium to Lutetium. That is 14 positions. Compared to the contraction of the first three Groups in any Period, that is very little contraction.
Before we go on, I want to address a question my readers may have here. Someone might say, “why are the radii getting smaller as the nuclei are getting bigger? Isn't that counterintuitive?” Well, you have to remember that we are looking at atomic radius here, not nuclear radius. The atomic radius includes what they think are orbiting electrons. I have shown there are no orbiting electrons, orbiting the entire nucleus. Electrons are orbiting the pole of a specific proton. But we do have distances of electron capture, and that is what the mainstream is really measuring when they give you these atomic radii. That is the radius at which the last electron is captured. It is the radius of the effective charge vortex, in other words. If you think about it, you will see why this radius would get smaller as the nucleus gets bigger. A bigger nucleus recycles a larger and stronger charge field, and that charge field can more easily capture passing electrons. So as the nucleus gains charge strength, the electron capture radius lowers.
You will say, “That is still counterintuitive. Shouldn't a stronger charge field be able to reach further out into the external field, grabbing electrons at a greater distance?” Well, in some ways that visualization is true. The bigger nuclei can reach out and affect particles at a greater distance. But because the field lines are all photon field lines, we have to follow the photons first. Charge is a field of photons. The electrons will travel in that field of photons, like a boat in a stream. So we have to ask, how does a stronger recycled charge field affect those photon field lines? It actually hugs them closer to the nucleus. A more powerful intake vortex pulls the same field line lower. So we should study a given electron following a given field line. With a smaller nucleus, that field line will be further from the nucleus. If we suddenly make the nucleus larger and more powerful, keeping the same electron on the same field line, both will drop lower, closer to the nucleus. That is the cause of the apparent orbital contraction.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:37 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 5:09 am
Erbium
Atomic Number: 68
233. The LANTHANIDES and breaking madelung rule
http://milesmathis.com/lanthan.pdf
?
So how do I explain Lutetium's similarity to these group 3 elements? Well, since the Lanthanides are built from Xenon, we can put six protons in each of those outer holes. Each disk in Xenon contains three alphas, so the hole in any disk isn't full until we have six protons in it. Our six protons act like three alphas, continuing the building-block process. With Lutetium, we have 17 extra protons to deal with (above Xenon). First we fill the outer holes with 6. Then we fill the two inner holes, to get us past the radioactivity of Promethium (see my analysis of Technetium in a previous paper). Then we fill the outer holes with 6 more. That takes us to 14 and gives us a stable Erbium, which is rare, but which has 6 stable isotopes. Instead of double filling the inner two holes, Lutetium triple fills three outer holes, mimicking group 3 elements. One of the holes that Lutetium triple fills is the top hole, so once again we have the appearance of “a single valence electron” without any need for a sub-shell 5d.
Atomic Number: 68
233. The LANTHANIDES and breaking madelung rule
http://milesmathis.com/lanthan.pdf
?
So how do I explain Lutetium's similarity to these group 3 elements? Well, since the Lanthanides are built from Xenon, we can put six protons in each of those outer holes. Each disk in Xenon contains three alphas, so the hole in any disk isn't full until we have six protons in it. Our six protons act like three alphas, continuing the building-block process. With Lutetium, we have 17 extra protons to deal with (above Xenon). First we fill the outer holes with 6. Then we fill the two inner holes, to get us past the radioactivity of Promethium (see my analysis of Technetium in a previous paper). Then we fill the outer holes with 6 more. That takes us to 14 and gives us a stable Erbium, which is rare, but which has 6 stable isotopes. Instead of double filling the inner two holes, Lutetium triple fills three outer holes, mimicking group 3 elements. One of the holes that Lutetium triple fills is the top hole, so once again we have the appearance of “a single valence electron” without any need for a sub-shell 5d.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:38 pm
Thulium
Atomic Number: 69
Not mentioned
?
Atomic Number: 69
Not mentioned
?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:41 pm
Ytterbium
Atomic Number: 70
240a. Electron Bonding is a myth
http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf
?
Now let us look at electronegativity. Current theory tells us that atoms have to have a different electronegativity to bond, but “electronegativity” is just a word. Up to now it has explained nothing, its has just assigned a term to a difference whose cause is unknown. Electronegativity cannot be measured directly. It also doesn't follow any logical pattern on the Periodic Table, given current theory. It generally runs from low to high across the table, but there are many exceptions (Hydrogen, Zinc, Cadmium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and the entire 6th period, for instance). In fact, electronegativity is simply calculated after the fact, and it has no mechanics behind it at all. We can see this clearly at Wikipedia, where it is admitted:
To calculate Pauling electronegativity for an element, it is necessary to have data on the dissociation energies of at least two types of covalent bond formed by that element.
That is the definition of post hoc. In other words, the math is pushed to match the data, and has no predictive qualities. Pauling was trying to build models without the charge field, and with the wrong quantum mechanics, so all his calculations were doomed.
Atomic Number: 70
240a. Electron Bonding is a myth
http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf
?
Now let us look at electronegativity. Current theory tells us that atoms have to have a different electronegativity to bond, but “electronegativity” is just a word. Up to now it has explained nothing, its has just assigned a term to a difference whose cause is unknown. Electronegativity cannot be measured directly. It also doesn't follow any logical pattern on the Periodic Table, given current theory. It generally runs from low to high across the table, but there are many exceptions (Hydrogen, Zinc, Cadmium, Terbium, Ytterbium, and the entire 6th period, for instance). In fact, electronegativity is simply calculated after the fact, and it has no mechanics behind it at all. We can see this clearly at Wikipedia, where it is admitted:
To calculate Pauling electronegativity for an element, it is necessary to have data on the dissociation energies of at least two types of covalent bond formed by that element.
That is the definition of post hoc. In other words, the math is pushed to match the data, and has no predictive qualities. Pauling was trying to build models without the charge field, and with the wrong quantum mechanics, so all his calculations were doomed.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:39 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:42 pm
Lutetium
Atomic Number: 71
233. The LANTHANIDES and breaking madelung rule
http://milesmathis.com/lanthan.pdf
So how do I explain Lutetium's similarity to these group 3 elements? Well, since the Lanthanides are built from Xenon, we can put six protons in each of those outer holes. Each disk in Xenon contains three alphas, so the hole in any disk isn't full until we have six protons in it. Our six protons act like three alphas, continuing the building-block process. With Lutetium, we have 17 extra protons to deal with (above Xenon). First we fill the outer holes with 6. Then we fill the two inner holes, to get us past the radioactivity of Promethium (see my analysis of Technetium in a previous paper). Then we fill the outer holes with 6 more. That takes us to 14 and gives us a stable Erbium, which is rare, but which has 6 stable isotopes. Instead of double filling the inner two holes, Lutetium triple fills three outer holes, mimicking group 3 elements. One of the holes that Lutetium triple fills is the top hole, so once again we have the appearance of “a single valence electron” without any need for a sub-shell 5d.
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
OK, now let's return to the Lanthanide Contraction. The Lanthanide Contraction is actually misnamed, because the peculiar thing about the Lanthanides is that they don't contract much at all as we go from Lanthanum to Lutetium. Lanthanum has an atomic radius of 187, Cerium drops to 182, but then the Lanthanides contract very little after that. Praesodymium stays at about 182, we drop to 180 by Samarium, 176 by Holmium, and Lutetium is still 174. So we drop only eight points from Cerium to Lutetium. That is 14 positions. Compared to the contraction of the first three Groups in any Period, that is very little contraction.
Before we go on, I want to address a question my readers may have here. Someone might say, “why are the radii getting smaller as the nuclei are getting bigger? Isn't that counterintuitive?” Well, you have to remember that we are looking at atomic radius here, not nuclear radius. The atomic radius includes what they think are orbiting electrons. I have shown there are no orbiting electrons, orbiting the entire nucleus. Electrons are orbiting the pole of a specific proton. But we do have distances of electron capture, and that is what the mainstream is really measuring when they give you these atomic radii. That is the radius at which the last electron is captured. It is the radius of the effective charge vortex, in other words. If you think about it, you will see why this radius would get smaller as the nucleus gets bigger. A bigger nucleus recycles a larger and stronger charge field, and that charge field can more easily capture passing electrons. So as the nucleus gains charge strength, the electron capture radius lowers.
Atomic Number: 71
233. The LANTHANIDES and breaking madelung rule
http://milesmathis.com/lanthan.pdf
So how do I explain Lutetium's similarity to these group 3 elements? Well, since the Lanthanides are built from Xenon, we can put six protons in each of those outer holes. Each disk in Xenon contains three alphas, so the hole in any disk isn't full until we have six protons in it. Our six protons act like three alphas, continuing the building-block process. With Lutetium, we have 17 extra protons to deal with (above Xenon). First we fill the outer holes with 6. Then we fill the two inner holes, to get us past the radioactivity of Promethium (see my analysis of Technetium in a previous paper). Then we fill the outer holes with 6 more. That takes us to 14 and gives us a stable Erbium, which is rare, but which has 6 stable isotopes. Instead of double filling the inner two holes, Lutetium triple fills three outer holes, mimicking group 3 elements. One of the holes that Lutetium triple fills is the top hole, so once again we have the appearance of “a single valence electron” without any need for a sub-shell 5d.
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
OK, now let's return to the Lanthanide Contraction. The Lanthanide Contraction is actually misnamed, because the peculiar thing about the Lanthanides is that they don't contract much at all as we go from Lanthanum to Lutetium. Lanthanum has an atomic radius of 187, Cerium drops to 182, but then the Lanthanides contract very little after that. Praesodymium stays at about 182, we drop to 180 by Samarium, 176 by Holmium, and Lutetium is still 174. So we drop only eight points from Cerium to Lutetium. That is 14 positions. Compared to the contraction of the first three Groups in any Period, that is very little contraction.
Before we go on, I want to address a question my readers may have here. Someone might say, “why are the radii getting smaller as the nuclei are getting bigger? Isn't that counterintuitive?” Well, you have to remember that we are looking at atomic radius here, not nuclear radius. The atomic radius includes what they think are orbiting electrons. I have shown there are no orbiting electrons, orbiting the entire nucleus. Electrons are orbiting the pole of a specific proton. But we do have distances of electron capture, and that is what the mainstream is really measuring when they give you these atomic radii. That is the radius at which the last electron is captured. It is the radius of the effective charge vortex, in other words. If you think about it, you will see why this radius would get smaller as the nucleus gets bigger. A bigger nucleus recycles a larger and stronger charge field, and that charge field can more easily capture passing electrons. So as the nucleus gains charge strength, the electron capture radius lowers.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:44 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:47 pm
Hafnium
Atomic Number: 72
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
Atomic Number: 72
240c. Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
http://milesmathis.com/haf.pdf
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:45 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:50 pm
Tantalum
Atomic Number: 73
?
?
Related:
FOGAL SEMICONDUCTOR
A special semiconductor invented by Bill Fogal which, in its operational regime, utilizes an integrated semiconductor, tantalum capacitor, and feedback resistor to accomplish charge blocking (blocking of electron current flow dq/dt) while passing displacement current d/dt
The Fogal semiconductor can also accomplish amplified phase conjugation of signals as well as infolding (translation of input transverse EM waves to output longitudinal EM waves) and outfolding (translation of received input longitudinal EM waves to output transverse EM waves). Used in communication systems, it opens the use of the unlimited "infolded" electromagnetics bandwidth. Since it may communicate using longitudinal EM waves, it is also usable for superluminal or a specialized "tunneling" communication through the "interior" of normal EM waves, potentials, and fields.
http://www.cheniere.org/references/annotated_glossary.htm
See William J. Fogal, "High Gain, Low distortion, Faster Switching Transistor," U.S. Patent No. 5,196,809, Mar. 23, 1993; — "High Gain, Low Distortion, Faster Switching Transistor," U.S. Patent No. 5,430,413, July 4, 1995, a continuation of his earlier patent.
Atomic Number: 73
?
?
Related:
FOGAL SEMICONDUCTOR
A special semiconductor invented by Bill Fogal which, in its operational regime, utilizes an integrated semiconductor, tantalum capacitor, and feedback resistor to accomplish charge blocking (blocking of electron current flow dq/dt) while passing displacement current d/dt
The Fogal semiconductor can also accomplish amplified phase conjugation of signals as well as infolding (translation of input transverse EM waves to output longitudinal EM waves) and outfolding (translation of received input longitudinal EM waves to output transverse EM waves). Used in communication systems, it opens the use of the unlimited "infolded" electromagnetics bandwidth. Since it may communicate using longitudinal EM waves, it is also usable for superluminal or a specialized "tunneling" communication through the "interior" of normal EM waves, potentials, and fields.
http://www.cheniere.org/references/annotated_glossary.htm
See William J. Fogal, "High Gain, Low distortion, Faster Switching Transistor," U.S. Patent No. 5,196,809, Mar. 23, 1993; — "High Gain, Low Distortion, Faster Switching Transistor," U.S. Patent No. 5,430,413, July 4, 1995, a continuation of his earlier patent.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:53 pm
Tungsten
Atomic Number: 74
240f. Explaining the Density of Osmium
http://milesmathis.com/osmium.pdf
?
But we still have to explain the elements below Osmium, like Rhenium. By the logic above, Rhenium should be even denser than Osmium. Why isn't it? Rhenium is still very dense, so we have to leave the blue disks below to explain that very high density. But Rhenium is not balanced all round in the 4th level like Osmium. Rhenium has one fewer proton to put in the 4th level, which would lopside the nucleus. To maintain balance, it has to substitute a neutron for that missing proton in the 4th level. It will make that substitution in the carousel level, rather than the axial level, since balance in the axial level is the most important consideration of the two. The axial protons drive the whole nucleus, so the nucleus won't fool with that balance unless it absolutely has to. Instead, Rhenium prefers to substitute a neutron for a proton in one of the four carousel positions. Not only does this give Rhenium a tiny spin wobble, it gives us another slight anomaly. Remember, neutrons outweigh protons by a bit, and the carousel level is the major spin level of the nucleus. This gives Rhenium more mass in the spinning carousel level than Osmium has. This increases the centrifugal effect there, which increases the diameter of the carousel level, actually lowering the effective density of the nucleus. Since Tungsten has to do this same thing with two neutrons, its density again drops.
Rhenium
Atomic Number: 75
232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
?
I will answer another question here, although it is a bit of a diversion. “Why isn't Rhenium radioactive? The other group 7 elements above Manganese are radioactive.” Because Rhenium isn't really group 7. The Periodic Table has been shuffled above Barium, remember, in order to lift out the Lanthanides. If we put the Lanthanides back in, Rhenium becomes group 21. There is no reason for group 21 to be radioactive. The next question should be, “Then why isn't Gold radioactive? If we put the Lanthanides back in, then Hafnium is like a noble gas. If we start over from there, then Gold is 7 numbers up from Hafnium. It should be radioactive.” But again, we see that Gold isn't group 7, and it isn't group 11, either; it is group 25. I just showed you the diagram for Gold, and Gold fills both inner holes evenly. Therefore it isn't radioactive. Group 7 radioactivity is caused by one of the inner holes being left open. In fact, my diagramming is the only good answer so far to the question of why there are no radioactive elements in the current period 6, before Polonium. Current theory can't tell you why Technetium is radioactive, or why Rhenium (or Gold) isn't.
To see the difference between group 11 and 25, let us diagram Silver:
Atomic Number: 74
240f. Explaining the Density of Osmium
http://milesmathis.com/osmium.pdf
?
But we still have to explain the elements below Osmium, like Rhenium. By the logic above, Rhenium should be even denser than Osmium. Why isn't it? Rhenium is still very dense, so we have to leave the blue disks below to explain that very high density. But Rhenium is not balanced all round in the 4th level like Osmium. Rhenium has one fewer proton to put in the 4th level, which would lopside the nucleus. To maintain balance, it has to substitute a neutron for that missing proton in the 4th level. It will make that substitution in the carousel level, rather than the axial level, since balance in the axial level is the most important consideration of the two. The axial protons drive the whole nucleus, so the nucleus won't fool with that balance unless it absolutely has to. Instead, Rhenium prefers to substitute a neutron for a proton in one of the four carousel positions. Not only does this give Rhenium a tiny spin wobble, it gives us another slight anomaly. Remember, neutrons outweigh protons by a bit, and the carousel level is the major spin level of the nucleus. This gives Rhenium more mass in the spinning carousel level than Osmium has. This increases the centrifugal effect there, which increases the diameter of the carousel level, actually lowering the effective density of the nucleus. Since Tungsten has to do this same thing with two neutrons, its density again drops.
Rhenium
Atomic Number: 75
232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
?
I will answer another question here, although it is a bit of a diversion. “Why isn't Rhenium radioactive? The other group 7 elements above Manganese are radioactive.” Because Rhenium isn't really group 7. The Periodic Table has been shuffled above Barium, remember, in order to lift out the Lanthanides. If we put the Lanthanides back in, Rhenium becomes group 21. There is no reason for group 21 to be radioactive. The next question should be, “Then why isn't Gold radioactive? If we put the Lanthanides back in, then Hafnium is like a noble gas. If we start over from there, then Gold is 7 numbers up from Hafnium. It should be radioactive.” But again, we see that Gold isn't group 7, and it isn't group 11, either; it is group 25. I just showed you the diagram for Gold, and Gold fills both inner holes evenly. Therefore it isn't radioactive. Group 7 radioactivity is caused by one of the inner holes being left open. In fact, my diagramming is the only good answer so far to the question of why there are no radioactive elements in the current period 6, before Polonium. Current theory can't tell you why Technetium is radioactive, or why Rhenium (or Gold) isn't.
To see the difference between group 11 and 25, let us diagram Silver:
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:53 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:57 pm
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:29 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:00 pm
Iridium
Atomic Number: 77
244. WHY IS ANTI-HELIUM4 SO HARD TO CREATE?
http://milesmathis.com/antih.pdf
?
Although the fourth level neutrons aren't normally in those positions between adjacent protons, a high-energy collision can force them into those positions with a lucky hit, creating an alpha by main force. But of course this means that for every such alpha created in this way, some smaller element must also be created. In other words, if the gold loses those two protons, it is no longer gold. The press release tells us that 18 samples of anti-helium4 were found from a billion gold collisions, and if that is so, there should also be 18 samples of iridium nuclei or 36 samples of platinum. Either one gold nucleus lost two protons, or each of two gold nuclei lost one proton. I guess they can't admit that because it smacks of alchemy. They can admit of alchemy when it comes to uranium decay, but not otherwise. And even then they don't call it alchemy.
Atomic Number: 77
244. WHY IS ANTI-HELIUM4 SO HARD TO CREATE?
http://milesmathis.com/antih.pdf
?
Although the fourth level neutrons aren't normally in those positions between adjacent protons, a high-energy collision can force them into those positions with a lucky hit, creating an alpha by main force. But of course this means that for every such alpha created in this way, some smaller element must also be created. In other words, if the gold loses those two protons, it is no longer gold. The press release tells us that 18 samples of anti-helium4 were found from a billion gold collisions, and if that is so, there should also be 18 samples of iridium nuclei or 36 samples of platinum. Either one gold nucleus lost two protons, or each of two gold nuclei lost one proton. I guess they can't admit that because it smacks of alchemy. They can admit of alchemy when it comes to uranium decay, but not otherwise. And even then they don't call it alchemy.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 4:31 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:02 pm
Platinum
Atomic Number: 78
Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
Atomic Number: 78
Period 6 Why Isn't Hafnium a Noble Gas?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:08 pm
Gold
Atomic Number: 79
257. A Better Theory of Pair Production
That is the gold nucleus. I have shown that electrons don't orbit the nucleus, they orbit a charge minimum at the pole of the proton. Each of the colored disks represents some number of alphas, with two protons to each alpha. So the electrons are in the disks. When we fire a laser at an atom, it works preferentially on the outermost level of the nucleus, which in my diagram would be the red and purple disks. This is the fourth level, which in some ways corresponds to the fourth electron level in current theory. In this case, we will look at the carousel level of the gold nucleus, which is the four red and purple equatorial disks here. If we let this nucleus spin like the Earth, about a north-south axis, these four red and purple disks will be spinning like a carousel, you see. To watch this motion, you may look at Steven Smith's animation of gold. He also diagrams the electrons, so this may help you.
At any rate, when the laser beam falls on this gold nucleus, it does so in a line. The line of the beam intersects the plane of the carousel spin, and if the beam is aimed right, it begins knocking the electrons out of the disks. Because we have a line meeting a plane, all the electrons are knocked out in the same plane. Keep that in mind as we pull in another new piece of information.
As these electrons are knocked out of the nucleus, they are randomized according to spin. In other words, the laser may hit some electrons above center and some below. Therefore, some free electrons will be bumped out rightside up, and some will be bumped out upside down. Since, in most cases, an upside down electron is equivalent to a positron, the laser will be turning half our electrons into positrons, simply by flipping them over. This is the basic mechanism of pair production.
Atomic Number: 79
257. A Better Theory of Pair Production
That is the gold nucleus. I have shown that electrons don't orbit the nucleus, they orbit a charge minimum at the pole of the proton. Each of the colored disks represents some number of alphas, with two protons to each alpha. So the electrons are in the disks. When we fire a laser at an atom, it works preferentially on the outermost level of the nucleus, which in my diagram would be the red and purple disks. This is the fourth level, which in some ways corresponds to the fourth electron level in current theory. In this case, we will look at the carousel level of the gold nucleus, which is the four red and purple equatorial disks here. If we let this nucleus spin like the Earth, about a north-south axis, these four red and purple disks will be spinning like a carousel, you see. To watch this motion, you may look at Steven Smith's animation of gold. He also diagrams the electrons, so this may help you.
At any rate, when the laser beam falls on this gold nucleus, it does so in a line. The line of the beam intersects the plane of the carousel spin, and if the beam is aimed right, it begins knocking the electrons out of the disks. Because we have a line meeting a plane, all the electrons are knocked out in the same plane. Keep that in mind as we pull in another new piece of information.
As these electrons are knocked out of the nucleus, they are randomized according to spin. In other words, the laser may hit some electrons above center and some below. Therefore, some free electrons will be bumped out rightside up, and some will be bumped out upside down. Since, in most cases, an upside down electron is equivalent to a positron, the laser will be turning half our electrons into positrons, simply by flipping them over. This is the basic mechanism of pair production.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:11 pm
Mercury
Atomic Number: 80
232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
314. Solid Light?
Atomic Number: 80
232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
314. Solid Light?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:14 pm
Thallium
Atomic Number: 81
232. Why is Mercury Liquid?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
?
Gold doesn't have this problem either, as we see by studying the diagram above once more. Gold has that problem top and two sides, but it solves that by bonding at the other three places. Gold can bond to Gold at any of the other three places, since the purple disks are filled 3/6. Those three places create perfect plugs for Gold-Gold.
So we have discovered the secret of Mercury. It is the 4/6 plug all round that causes the weak Hg-Hg bond, and the liquid state.
As further proof of this, we may look at Thallium and Lead. Thallium is very soft, but it isn't liquid. It has created a bond stronger than Mercury at one of the six holes. It does this by five-filling two holes, taking one hole down to three. Thallium now has 3/6 in one of the outer holes, which allows for a bond with itself. Lead does the same thing, but twice, so that it has 4 holes five-filled, and two holes three-filled. This makes Lead more stable than Thallium, and so more abundant.
You will say, “That should make Lead very conductive according to your rules, but it isn't. You have a potential difference of 2/5, which should be considerable.” I can best answer that by showing the diagram for Lead. Green is five protons.
Atomic Number: 81
232. Why is Mercury Liquid?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
?
Gold doesn't have this problem either, as we see by studying the diagram above once more. Gold has that problem top and two sides, but it solves that by bonding at the other three places. Gold can bond to Gold at any of the other three places, since the purple disks are filled 3/6. Those three places create perfect plugs for Gold-Gold.
So we have discovered the secret of Mercury. It is the 4/6 plug all round that causes the weak Hg-Hg bond, and the liquid state.
As further proof of this, we may look at Thallium and Lead. Thallium is very soft, but it isn't liquid. It has created a bond stronger than Mercury at one of the six holes. It does this by five-filling two holes, taking one hole down to three. Thallium now has 3/6 in one of the outer holes, which allows for a bond with itself. Lead does the same thing, but twice, so that it has 4 holes five-filled, and two holes three-filled. This makes Lead more stable than Thallium, and so more abundant.
You will say, “That should make Lead very conductive according to your rules, but it isn't. You have a potential difference of 2/5, which should be considerable.” I can best answer that by showing the diagram for Lead. Green is five protons.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:29 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:17 pm
Lead
Atomic Number: 82
232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
So we have discovered the secret of Mercury. It is the 4/6 plug all round that causes the weak Hg-Hg bond, and the liquid state.
As further proof of this, we may look at Thallium and Lead. Thallium is very soft, but it isn't liquid. It has created a bond stronger than Mercury at one of the six holes. It does this by five-filling two holes, taking one hole down to three. Thallium now has 3/6 in one of the outer holes, which allows for a bond with itself. Lead does the same thing, but twice, so that it has 4 holes five-filled, and two holes three-filled. This makes Lead more stable than Thallium, and so more abundant.
You will say, “That should make Lead very conductive according to your rules, but it isn't. You have a potential difference of 2/5, which should be considerable.” I can best answer that by showing the diagram for Lead. Green is five protons.
See, no potential difference from pole to pole, therefore low conductivity.
Atomic Number: 82
232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf
So we have discovered the secret of Mercury. It is the 4/6 plug all round that causes the weak Hg-Hg bond, and the liquid state.
As further proof of this, we may look at Thallium and Lead. Thallium is very soft, but it isn't liquid. It has created a bond stronger than Mercury at one of the six holes. It does this by five-filling two holes, taking one hole down to three. Thallium now has 3/6 in one of the outer holes, which allows for a bond with itself. Lead does the same thing, but twice, so that it has 4 holes five-filled, and two holes three-filled. This makes Lead more stable than Thallium, and so more abundant.
You will say, “That should make Lead very conductive according to your rules, but it isn't. You have a potential difference of 2/5, which should be considerable.” I can best answer that by showing the diagram for Lead. Green is five protons.
See, no potential difference from pole to pole, therefore low conductivity.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:40 pm; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:19 pm
Bismuth
Atomic Number: 83
?
?
Atomic Number: 83
?
?
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:21 pm
Polonium
Atomic Number: 84
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
?
That confirms that we have to be very careful how we channel charge through those inner holes. The inner holes are very special in the nuclear architecture, and, as we have seen, groups 16 and 17 are a bit tricky. We already knew that from looking at Period 6, where Polonium and Astatine break down altogether.
In closing, I need to tie up one weak spot. I have said that those inner holes needed to be filled in most cases, to prevent the charge field from dashing through there and causing dissolution. But if protons are working like fans, pushing charge through, how does that prevent dissolution? If charge going through is dangerous, pushing charge through even faster won't help, will it?
Astatine
Atomic Number: 85
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
?
The radioactivity of Polonium and Astatine are explained in precisely the same way, and all the elements above Radon also meet similar problems.
If Radon is five protons in the outer holes, this explains why Radon is a gas. See my analysis of Mercury for more on this, but it comes down to way Radon must bond with itself. All the outer holes are 5/6 full, so when 5/6 meets 5/6, only one hole is open for five prongs. This means no bonding with itself, which means Radon must be a monatomic gas (which it is).
Atomic Number: 84
240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
?
That confirms that we have to be very careful how we channel charge through those inner holes. The inner holes are very special in the nuclear architecture, and, as we have seen, groups 16 and 17 are a bit tricky. We already knew that from looking at Period 6, where Polonium and Astatine break down altogether.
In closing, I need to tie up one weak spot. I have said that those inner holes needed to be filled in most cases, to prevent the charge field from dashing through there and causing dissolution. But if protons are working like fans, pushing charge through, how does that prevent dissolution? If charge going through is dangerous, pushing charge through even faster won't help, will it?
Astatine
Atomic Number: 85
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
?
The radioactivity of Polonium and Astatine are explained in precisely the same way, and all the elements above Radon also meet similar problems.
If Radon is five protons in the outer holes, this explains why Radon is a gas. See my analysis of Mercury for more on this, but it comes down to way Radon must bond with itself. All the outer holes are 5/6 full, so when 5/6 meets 5/6, only one hole is open for five prongs. This means no bonding with itself, which means Radon must be a monatomic gas (which it is).
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:28 am; edited 2 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics
by Cr6 Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:38 pm
Radon
Atomic Number: 86
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
You see how Radon has built itself a cozy little fourth level, balanced in color all round. That balance all round makes the mainstream think it has some similarity to a noble gas, which is why they go to all that trouble re-arranging Periods to get Radon into that group. The problem is, to achieve that balance, Radon had to put only one proton in each of the two holes below. With 30 protons in the outer level, that isn't enough to maintain cohesion. The centrifugal force from the carousel spin can't be balanced by the gravity from interior mass, since there simply isn't enough. You will say, “So why not put some of those outer protons in the inner holes?” We can try that, but you will see that this first configuration is actually the most stable of all possible configurations at this number. Again, we have to look at the way those inner holes fill. Say we send two more protons to the inner level. To maintain balance in the carousel level, we have to take those protons from the top and bottom holes. But this means we are just rearranging protons already on the axis: it won't help our inner/outer imbalance, since those protons on top and bottom are already “inner.” Yes, they are further away from center, but since they are right on the axis, they still count as inner. So this won't help us. So let us put two more down there. If we take these two from the axis, we still have the same problem, so let us take all four from the carousel, leaving five top and bottom.
We now have six below, three in each hole. The problem with this configuration is that while it seems to give us a bigger version of Iron, Iron is small enough to maintain stability while Radon isn't. Why? Because we now have five protons pushing charge in on the axis but only four in the carousel positions pulling charge out. Iron can solve that problem by conducting the extra charge straight through the axis and out the other side, giving us the magnetism we measure. Well, if we built Radon this way it would try to do that, too. But it wouldn't work because while Iron has neutrons in the inner holes, keeping cross charge out of the axis, Radon now has six protons pulling charge through the axis. This through charge would interfere with the conduction of charge, preventing Radon from conducting its extra charge out the other end. You would get a charge build up in the axis alphas, which would cause dissolution from the inside out. Adding more protons down there would only increase this problem. Because of its size, Radon has to pull charge through the inner holes. It can't leave them open because the ambient field would get in and cause problems. It can't stopper them with neutrons, because the surrounding field is simply too strong. The powerful charge field coming in from the sides has to be channeled through. But as we have seen, Radon can't create stability with protons in the holes, either. At this atomic number, there is simply no solution, which is why Radon is not stable.
Atomic Number: 86
230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf
You see how Radon has built itself a cozy little fourth level, balanced in color all round. That balance all round makes the mainstream think it has some similarity to a noble gas, which is why they go to all that trouble re-arranging Periods to get Radon into that group. The problem is, to achieve that balance, Radon had to put only one proton in each of the two holes below. With 30 protons in the outer level, that isn't enough to maintain cohesion. The centrifugal force from the carousel spin can't be balanced by the gravity from interior mass, since there simply isn't enough. You will say, “So why not put some of those outer protons in the inner holes?” We can try that, but you will see that this first configuration is actually the most stable of all possible configurations at this number. Again, we have to look at the way those inner holes fill. Say we send two more protons to the inner level. To maintain balance in the carousel level, we have to take those protons from the top and bottom holes. But this means we are just rearranging protons already on the axis: it won't help our inner/outer imbalance, since those protons on top and bottom are already “inner.” Yes, they are further away from center, but since they are right on the axis, they still count as inner. So this won't help us. So let us put two more down there. If we take these two from the axis, we still have the same problem, so let us take all four from the carousel, leaving five top and bottom.
We now have six below, three in each hole. The problem with this configuration is that while it seems to give us a bigger version of Iron, Iron is small enough to maintain stability while Radon isn't. Why? Because we now have five protons pushing charge in on the axis but only four in the carousel positions pulling charge out. Iron can solve that problem by conducting the extra charge straight through the axis and out the other side, giving us the magnetism we measure. Well, if we built Radon this way it would try to do that, too. But it wouldn't work because while Iron has neutrons in the inner holes, keeping cross charge out of the axis, Radon now has six protons pulling charge through the axis. This through charge would interfere with the conduction of charge, preventing Radon from conducting its extra charge out the other end. You would get a charge build up in the axis alphas, which would cause dissolution from the inside out. Adding more protons down there would only increase this problem. Because of its size, Radon has to pull charge through the inner holes. It can't leave them open because the ambient field would get in and cause problems. It can't stopper them with neutrons, because the surrounding field is simply too strong. The powerful charge field coming in from the sides has to be channeled through. But as we have seen, Radon can't create stability with protons in the holes, either. At this atomic number, there is simply no solution, which is why Radon is not stable.
Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:27 am; edited 3 times in total
Cr6- Admin
- Posts : 1178
Join date : 2014-08-09 -
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics» PyMOL - Molecular Graphics System
» Ligands and Coordination Chemistry
» The Gnome Chemistry Utils 0.14.0
» Hydrocarbon Formation and the Charge Field
» The NIST Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark DataBase
» Ligands and Coordination Chemistry
» The Gnome Chemistry Utils 0.14.0
» Hydrocarbon Formation and the Charge Field
» The NIST Computational Chemistry Comparison and Benchmark DataBase
Page 1 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum