John Cuthber

"what is the solubility of oxygen in air at 25 degrees celcius?" This question's meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapeyron-Clausius_Equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapeyron-Clausius_Equation

OK Zephir, while you are in the mood for patronising comments, perhaps you would like to explain why the addition of something that's mainly water and has no ion in common should precipitate salt from solution.

As has already been pointed out, if the only criterion for the periodic table were atomic number it would just be a string, there would be no periods. If the periods were related to the nuclei then the isotopes of an element wouldn't be in the same place. The periods reflect the filling of the electron shells. This "new" periodic table adds nothing to the old one (except, perhaps in artistic terms). Swansont, re your question "Who are the "we" to whom you refer in that last sentence?" I think the answer may be here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

"I do not understand what point are you trying to make. " I'm making the point, repeatedly, that the nuclei do not influence the periodic table because that role falls to the electrons. "That is the fact and I can not understand your hostility towards it. If you disagree, just tell me how it is not." I have told you why it is not true and you keep ignoring the fact. That's a good way to encourage hostillity.

"What is periodic about "period" with 2 elements, that is H and He? There is no other row like that." That's a valid criticism of the name "periodic" which remains in use for historical reasons. However the reason there are 2 elements in that period is well known. There's only 1 orbital with that energy and it only has room for 2 electrons because of the exclusion principle. I'm afraid I can't answer the other question i.e. "Why Madelung rule diagram has slanted lines" because it's far from clear what it means. Anyway it cannot possibly matter. All the elements have more than one isotope. Some, like tin, have a hatfull of stable isotopes. They have different nuclei but occupy the same place in the periodic table so the periodic table is demostrably indifferent to the nuclei. Why are you still bothering to try to defend this when it's clearly nonsense?

"I think I made my point clear:" Uniquely. "Tetrahedral sphere packing explains, electron configuration, Madelung rule, Aufbau Prinzip and the nuclear Magic numbers. " No it doesn't, whereas boring old quantum mechanics does. Isoptopes hold the same position in the periodic table but have different nuclei.

"more advantages, like correct length and natural limits of the periods, for example." Last time I looked they were already the right lengths. There's already an explanation of the rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufbau_principle The rule isn't always followed. Last time I looked, the lengths of the periods were correct anyway.

The periodic table has served well for many years. There is no clear advantage to rearanging it. It's not possible that the shape of the nuclei makes any meaningful difference to the electronic energy levels that dictate the periodic table. Telling me I have an old mind set doesn't help anyone.

My printer doesn't cope with 3d shapes like tetrahedera. That's one of the reasons I think the tetrahederal version is impractical.

"The nuclei represent the interface with chemistry" No, they still don't. The chemistry is all about the electrons. The stuff about nuclei is called "nuclear physics"; onec again, the hint is in the name.

All this speculation about the shapes of nuclei (in the face of the observed facts) is amusing enough as a pass-time- much like sudoku. On the other hand, the periodic table is related to the electrons rather than the nuclei. The periodic table is about chemistry and the chemistry of an element is related to the electrons rather than the nuclei. The classification into S,P,D, and F comes froms spectroscopic observation of the spectea (the letters, IIRC, are the initials of sharp, principle, diffuse and fine). This is plainly nothing to do with the nuclei because electronic spectroscopy deals with electrons (the clue is in the name). Accordingly; "It was recently realized that Periodic Law follows rules of the tetrahedral sphere packing and points to double tetrahedron nucleus:" now needs to be replaced buy "It was recently realized that Periodic Law follows the rules of quantium mecahnics and points to no evidence of anything to do with the nucleus:" Your version of the periodic table is pretty, but impractical. A bit like this one http://www.periodicspiral.com/

I see acid has established an early lead due to someone realising that yeasts grow well in fruit juices, but not generally in milk.

"No one has seen an atomic nucleus yet to say with confidence what it is like. " I have never seen America but I have a fair idea what it's like. Nobody has seen a single glucose molecule but it's shape is well documented. Being able to see something has very little to do with scientific knowlege. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/40/7/001

About the simplest nanoscale object you could get would be a grating with a spacing of about 100nm ie 0.1micron. Try putting that into this calculator with sensible values for the distance to the screen and the wavelength. http://www.ee.byu.edu/cleanroom/diffraction.phtml On the other hand, you might be able to see something of the structure with a microscope.

"It certainly would never be used for something as trivial as fueling a car. " Oh yes it was. South africa had lots of coal but they thought the people with oil were the wrong colour to do business with so they had to make their own oil. They have been doing this successfully for deacdes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasol

Argument from popularity might be a logical flaw, but it doesn't mean it's wrong. If Martell's work carried much weight in the scientific community it would be easy to show it. Since a lot of work has been done on cancer and smoking you would need to explain why this theory keeps getting ignored. Personally I think it's because Po stuck on ordinary dust (as most of it will be) would work just as well as that from smoke. Martell's paper requires it to be something like 100 tiomes more effective. "Also I don't think rads and rems are equivalent for alpha radiation." Did anyone say they were? What I pointed out was that by choosing to look at very local events you exagerate the apprent dose received. Thats' bad science - another problem with that paper. "Not exactly the most credible thing to put up against a paper that got published in Nature." A paper published in Nature generally sparks a whole lot of similar research. If it's right why isn't it mainstream? The website you cited gives a relatively much higher effect of smoking than I calculated earlier. I guess we can wait for the EPA to give a casting vote. On the other hand it says "When the tobacco is inhaled, the smoker receives a dose from the inhaled lead-210 as well as polonium-210, the decay product of lead-210. Lead-210 is deposited on the surfaces of bones and polonium-210 is deposited in the liver, kidney and spleen. ". No mention of the lungs. Even then, if the effect of smoking is to nearly double (280 vs 361 mRem) the radiation dose you receive, but the effect on lung cancer is enormously greater than that (and it is; estimates vary from about 8 to about 20) what you have is evidence that something else in smoke is responsible for most of the cancers in smokers. As I have said, it will be interesting to see what the EPA say about it.

"It was recently realized that Periodic Law follows rules of the tetrahedral sphere packing and points to double tetrahedron nucleus:" It certainly has not been recognized generally. The shapes of nuclei are known (as are the shapes of some of their excited states). Sphere's are common. Sausage shapes and pumpkin shapes happen too. They are not tetrahederal or double tetrahedra.

Very neat, but that image is produced by microscale, rather than nanoscale, printing/

It's not the weight of water that matters, it's the weight of the air, and there's a lot of that.

Why a 5000yr wait? Anyway, it will be interesting to see what the EPA think.

Another way to look at is that it's not removing 1.3 pounds of air that's creating the pressure- it's a whole several mile thick layer of air pressing down that does it.

I'm allowed to shift the burden of proof because I'm putting forward the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the body is not able to distinguish between Po from cigarettes and Po from background radon. If you want to make a case for controlling Po in tobacco you need to prove that it is more hazardous than the Po in normal air. "That paper is titled "THE MYTH OF PLUTONIUM TOXICITY" Polonium is not referenced anywhere in it. You say you found a few papers. " I know what it's called and I know that it points out that Martell's work isn't widely accepted. The other reference I gave earlier it says "The Martelll "Hot Particle Theory" has been addressed in the past and has apparently lost popularity in the scientific community ". If you can find a few independent papers that support Martells work then I might start to beleive it, but even then I would need some convincing that the the small levels of Po measured in tobacco have a bigger effect than the much larger quantities of the same stuff from other sources. Incidentally, the facts are 1 I am offering a contrary opinion and I'm not the only one- the 2 references I gave earlier also offer the opinion that there's a problem with Martell's work. 2 The quantity of radiation is small- much more is present from other sources so there would need to be something special about Po from tobacco for Martells conclusions to be valid. No such "special" property has been demonstrated. (that's a refutation BTW) So when you write "I'm not seeing anything refuting it, or even offering a contrary opinion." I can't help wondering if you have read what I have written. I agree that the EPA certainly have bigger fish to fry- 20Bq of Po in a cigatrette isn't a big fish.

Perhaps more useful to know is the variation of the solubility with temperature. At 0 C the solubilities are 37.5 and 79 g/100 ml At 100C they are 39.12 and 230 g/100 ml