Atomic Radii

[elas]

Atomic Radii

This thread continues the development of the concept outlined in a thread dealing with a novel table of elements that can be found on:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674

 

The next step was to compare the number of inner (ie) and outer electrons (oe) with the number of neutrons (N). Arranging the outer electrons in increasing order of numbers produced the result shown in graph 1

 

 

This shows that inner electrons and neutrons have similarities in their patterns; further investigation found that the number of inner electrons divided by the number of neutrons produced a graph line (blue diamonds, graph 2) similar to a graph line of atomic radii (brown squares graph 2).

 

The e:N line is smooth indicating that it determines atomic radii, but it (the e:N line) does not determine the nature of the elements. The blue dash lines show that the inner electrons and neutrons are compressed as the total number of particles increases. Note that elements of atomic number 89 to 92 inclusive no longer descend below the blue dash line indicating the limit of natural compression.

 

The outer electron bands, between the red dash lines are not compressed and the vertical distance between the red dash lines is the same from left to right. But, within the band some compression does occur as shown by the dotted red line; this (the dotted red line) marks the major changes in element nature. In shells 3,4, and 5 the dotted red line marks the switch over to the end 6 group (noble gases, halogens, non-metals, metalloids and other metals). In the 6th shell it marks the change from lanthanides to transition metals (with one exception). Note that, as is to be expected; the radioactive elements disrupt the pattern of the outer electrons, but not the inner electrons (elements of atomic Nos. 81 to 92).

 

In conclusion it can be stated that in the proposed balanced field model it can be shown the neutrons play a part in determining atomic radii, but neutrons play no part in determining the nature of the elements; that (the nature of the elements) is determined by the outer electrons of each element. Compression is largely limited to the inner electrons although some compression does occur in the outer electrons where (outer electron) compression plays a part in the determination of the nature of the elements. Taking together with the thread on the Table of Elements it provides a novel way of explaining atomic structure that combined with earlier threads on particle structure demonstrate that structure (not to be confused with actions) can be explained in a classical manner using one elementary particle and one elementary force.

 

Graph 2

 

[John Cuthber]

"The e:N line is smooth indicating that it determines atomic radii"

Some elements like tin have a hatfull of stable isotopes and, therefore, different numbers of neutrons. These isotopes have the same atomic radii.

 

The radii are therefore not determined by anything to do with the neutrons.

If this statement

"In conclusion it can be stated that in the proposed balanced field model it can be shown the neutrons play a part in determining atomic radii"

is true then the model is wrong.

 

You cited another thread; here's a quote from it "yeah, he'll post some of his crap, disappear for a few weeks and then return spouting the same old rubbish. i'm surprised he hasn't been given his marching orders already.".

[elas]

"The e:N line is smooth indicating that it determines atomic radii"

Some elements like tin have a hatfull of stable isotopes and, therefore, different numbers of neutrons. These isotopes have the same atomic radii.

 

In 2003 I opened a thread requesting information on the radii of isotopes and received seven references all dealing with atomic radii and not one mention of isotope radii; if you can supply a reference to your statement underlined above, it would be greatly appreciated.

 

You cited another thread; here's a quote from it "yeah, he'll post some of his crap, disappear for a few weeks and then return spouting the same old rubbish. i'm surprised he hasn't been given his marching orders already.".

 

There are many people who make such comments without given a constructive or counter argument. I prefer to rely on the comments of those who offer constructive criticism, this is a debating forum not a smart alec comment forum. It is also the forum for theory speculation.

 

The values used to construct graph 1 are taken from The Elements by John Emsley and the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Graph 2 is simply graph 1 in a different order. Graph 2 can be simplified as follows:

 

 

This debate is about the way in which the cause of the radii values is determined; constructive critcisms and helpful comments (preferably with references) are the correct mode of debate. Your comment is much appreciated and I look forward to your reply to my request.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Postscript

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41817

Severian

That is why the Copenhagen Interpretation is just an interpretation. There is no way to test it, so it is really just philosophy.

 

Looking to see what is happening on other forums I came across the above. It is now many years since there was a many page debate on this very point where I was the only one claiming that QT is philosophy (I eventually won). The background to this debate was my claim that with the advances made since the Copenhagen conference it is now possible to construct a classical theory of particle structure.

Swansont recently agreed that I have written a (classical) testable theory of particle structure, this thread on atomic radii is an attempt to carry the particle structure concept into atomic structure.

[swansont]

Postscript

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=41817

Severian

That is why the Copenhagen Interpretation is just an interpretation. There is no way to test it, so it is really just philosophy.

 

Looking to see what is happening on other forums I came across the above. It is now many years since there was a many page debate on this very point where I was the only one claiming that QT is philosophy (I eventually won). The background to this debate was my claim that with the advances made since the Copenhagen conference it is now possible to construct a classical theory of particle structure.

Swansont recently agreed that I have written a (classical) testable theory of particle structure, this thread on atomic radii is an attempt to carry the particle structure concept into atomic structure.

 

It is vital to note that Severian is agreeing that an interpretation of QM is philosophy, not the theory itself.

 

Also, I had agreed that you had (finally) made a single testable prediction, with regard to gravitation, namely that G was actually a variable that depended on the type of particles involved. It would be incorrect to say that you have a theory of particle structure until you have made testable predictions here, as well.

 

You should probably expend some effort on seeing if data exist which support or refute this prediction.

[elas]

It is vital to note that Severian is agreeing that an interpretation of QM is philosophy, not the theory itself.

 

Many years ago in a thread titled Why all the nutcases asssisted by an university programme leader (in SSK), I researched and submitted an essay the gist of which was that QT is defined as philosophical mathematical prediction. The experts at that time conceded I was correct.

 

Also, I had agreed that you had (finally) made a single testable prediction, with regard to gravitation, namely that G was actually a variable that depended on the type of particles involved. It would be incorrect to say that you have a theory of particle structure until you have made testable predictions here, as well.

 

Thank-you for clarifying your statement, in future will be more careful when referring to your statement.

 

You should probably expend some effort on seeing if data exist which support or refute this prediction.

 

I wrongly assumed that you were implying that such data did not exist at present; will return to that when this thread has run its course. Having had time to think about it I know realise that John Cuthber's reply points the way to an improved solution that might result in an equation for atomic radii; must check this out first.

regards

elas

[John Cuthber]

If atomic (or ionic) radii depended on the isotope then simple crystalisation would separate isotopes completely.

It doesn't so your "theory" is wrong.

 

Your "theory" doesn't need improving so much as rubbing out and starting again.

As for "This debate is about the way in which the cause of the radii values is determined", Why bother? The current theory explains it quite well (and it doesn't involve the nuclei).

[elas]

If atomic (or ionic) radii depended on the isotope then simple crystalisation would separate isotopes completely.

It doesn't so your "theory" is wrong..

 

Ion separation by selective crystallization:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VS5-4W79J1R-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=954019848&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7fc0c17ae55595b1f67d49d93328b0ae

[insane_alien]

elas, that has bugger all to do with isotope separation. answer his bloody question instead of skirting it like usual.

[elas]

elas, that has bugger all to do with isotope separation. answer his bloody question instead of skirting it like usual.

 

I have answered the only part of his statement I can find a reference to:

 

"If atomic (or ionic) radii".

 

He has not answered my request for references to his first statement, or given any references for following opinions.

 

The quality of 'experts' replying to this thread falls far short of the example set by swansont; there is a difference between 'debate' and 'unsubstantiated statements of opinion'.

 

That said his first reply lead to an improvement as shown in the following graph, further improvement should be possible.

 

[insane_alien]

the first part of his question also mentions the separation of isotopes explicitly.

 

also, see your graphs, why don't you label the damn axes, i can never tell which bit is supposed to be which, what the units are and so on. if you did this then you may get more replies.

 

so again, answer his question and stop trying to run away from it.

[iNow]

also, see your graphs, why don't you label the damn axes, i can never tell which bit is supposed to be which, what the units are and so on. if you did this then you may get more replies.

Seconded. One of the most annoying things in this world is a graph with no labels, and a scale which is undefined. You may as well be showing us crayon art from a kindergartner... Without labels or reference to scale/units, they are roughly equivalent.

[John Cuthber]

"I have answered the only part of his statement I can find a reference to:"

No you have not. That hasn't anything to do with isotope separation.

 

 

Strange as it may seem to Elas, I can't find a table of atomic radii for different isotopes because they are practically identical.

What I can find is a quote from my old copy of Sidgewick's Chemical elements and their compounds

"The molecular volume of is scarcely affected by replacing H by D; the lengths of the H-X and D-X bonds are practically the same."

The small differences are well explained by differences in zero point energy.

[elas]

"I have answered the only part of his statement I can find a reference to:"

No you have not. That hasn't anything to do with isotope separation.

 

 

Strange as it may seem to Elas, I can't find a table of atomic radii for different isotopes because they are practically identical.

What I can find is a quote from my old copy of Sidgewick's Chemical elements and their compounds

"The molecular volume of is scarcely affected by replacing H by D; the lengths of the H-X and D-X bonds are practically the same."

The small differences are well explained by differences in zero point energy.

 

It does not seem strange to me, on the contrary in view of the change to graph 2, made as a result of your reply; it is exactly what I expected. Your reply made me realise that there is a minimum number of neutrons (required to prevent collapse) and a maximum number of neutrons that can be contained by the inner field electrons. This is part of the reason why the number of inner field electrons changes in the steps shown in my Structural Table of Elements.

 

Note that in the ammended graph the line representing 'inner electrons divided by the average number of neutrons (ie/ave N) goes from below the radius line for elements 11 to 18 and above the line for elements 55 to 82 as the neutron:electron density ratio changes. The radii of elements 1 to 10 have a different structural sequence explained in my interpretation of 3dimensional fractions. Elements above 82 are known to be radiactive causing the distortion mentioned in the explanation to graph 1.

 

Am I correct in assuming that H and D are hydrogen and deuterium?

 

I included pair bond length (but only pair bond length) as a supplement to a table of particle radii submitted earlier. At that time I had not worked on atomic radii.

Edited July 12, 2009 by elas

[insane_alien]

you still haven't answered the question about isotope separation. pleas answer it.

[John Cuthber]

"it is exactly what I expected. Your reply made me realise that there is a minimum number of neutrons (required to prevent collapse) and a maximum number of neutrons that can be contained by the inner field electrons."

Wrong again I'm afraid.

You can alter the electron density at the centre of the atom. In most cases it dpooesn't influence nuclear stability.

The inner field electrons (whatever they mad be) don't have anything to do with stabillity.

Incidentally you seem to have missed the poiint I made earlier.

 

If the neutrons are responsible for atomic radii then how come the radii don't change when you change the number of neutrons?

 

If your next post doesn't give a clear, valid answer to that question then give up on this idea.

[elas]

 

If the neutrons are responsible for atomic radii then how come the radii don't change when you change the number of neutrons?.

 

According to The Elements by John Emsley the above statement is not correct, please give a reference to your source.

[insane_alien]

thats the best you can come up with? a book.

 

not peer reviewed, you haven't given us a page number(or even a chapter)

 

do you really expect us to go purchase a book and wade through it to find a handful of sentences related to this thread?

 

give use a peer reviewed source or GTFO. you can write a book about any old crap you want and get it published.

[John Cuthber]

To be fair John Emsley is a well respected writer.

A quick picture of the relevant page would be nice.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

By one of the odd coincidences that you sometimes find I have found a paper that does look ath the difference in atomic radii for different isotopes. They are only looking at silicon and, in particular at the difference between highly enriched 28Si and the natural mixture (which contains about 7% of to other isotopes).

The difference is a massive 1.95 parts in a million.

 

I don't know if you will have access to this paper, but here it is.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-ffissn=0026-1394/-ff30=all/0026-1394/46/5/005/met9_5_005.pdf?request-id=888aa37d-0832-4a7d-bf17-c78f67983581

 

The coefficient of thermal expansion of highly enriched 28Si

Guido Bartl, Arnold Nicolaus, Ernest Kessler, Ren´e Sch¨odel and Peter Becker

Metrologia 46 (2009) 416–422

stacks.iop.org/Met/46/416

[elas]

John Cuthber

 

I apologise for an incorrect submission, the correct submission reads:

Emsley gives the radius of Hydrogen as 154 picometres, Wikipedia gives the radius of Deuterium as 0.96 fm.

 

Taken together with your find it would seem that radii are indeed determined in part by the number of neutrons, however; there is insufficient data to establish this with certainty, or allow any improvement to be made to the table used to construct my last graph. The interesting point is (as the graph shows) that the mathematical relationship is with the number of electrons in the inner half of the shells see: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674 for details.

 

The equation that swansont suggested further work on is mr=G/2 (see http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40962 )

 

I shall take swansont’s advice and return to work on the equation, I will not give up completely on atomic structure, but will keep a look out for data that will allow further progress to be made.

 

Thank-you for your help which is much appreciated,

elas

[insane_alien]

Emsley gives the radius of Hydrogen as 154 picometres, Wikipedia gives the radius of Deuterium as 0.96 fm.

 

0.96fm is the radius of the NUCLEUS of deuterium. its only in the big section labelled 'nuclear properties'.

 

and you should define if you are considering van der waals radius or covalent radius.

 

the covalent radius of hydrogen is 31+/- 5 pm and the van der waals radius is 120 pm.

 

all texts i have giving this information ignore isotopes explicitly because 'there is no measurable difference'

[elas]

0.96fm is the radius of the NUCLEUS of deuterium. its only in the big section labelled 'nuclear properties'.

 

and you should define if you are considering van der waals radius or covalent radius.

 

the covalent radius of hydrogen is 31+/- 5 pm and the van der waals radius is 120 pm.

 

all texts i have giving this information ignore isotopes explicitly because 'there is no measurable difference'

 

All radii given by Emsley are classified as 'nuclear data', but he does not define that as applying only to the nucleus.

I use 'atomic radii' the measurement found by experiment.

 

I have yet to find or be given a reference to a work that states specifically that 'all isotopes of a given element have the same radius'.

Edited July 17, 2009 by elas

[insane_alien]

if its not nuclear then its not to do with the bloody nuleus. thats what nuclear means incase you hadn't figured that out.

 

there are three different radii that can be of interest.

 

nuclear radii, which will vary with neutron count(obviously)

covalent radii, which will not vary with neutron count and

van der waals radii, which will also not vary with neutron count.

 

you need to stop mixing and matching these things as they are incredibly different things.

[John Cuthber]

All radii given by Emsley are classified as 'nuclear data', but he does not define that as applying only to the nucleus.

I use 'atomic radii' the measurement found by experiment.

 

I have yet to find or be given a reference to a work that states specifically that 'all isotopes of a given element have the same radius'.

 

No, but I have given you two specific instances where they are practically identical.

On the other hand you have offered no evidence at all.

Do you understand why that's a problem?

 

Also, have you understood the difference between a nuclear radius and an atomic radius yet?

 

And, just to reiterate.

 

If the neutrons are responsible for atomic radii then how come the radii don't change when you change the number of neutrons?

 

If your next post doesn't give a clear, valid answer to that question then give up on this idea.

Misunderstanding a book doesn't count as a valid answer.

[elas]

0.96fm is the radius of the NUCLEUS of deuterium. its only in the big section labelled 'nuclear properties'.

 

and you should define if you are considering van der waals radius or covalent radius.

 

the covalent radius of hydrogen is 31+/- 5 pm and the van der waals radius is 120 pm.

 

all texts i have giving this information ignore isotopes explicitly because 'there is no measurable difference'

 

At last I grasp the points you are making.

 

But this amateur is not entirely wrong, first I never claimed the amount the atomic radius is affected by the number of neutrons was large or small, my quest, in part; was to discover its quantity.

The following extract is taken from:

 

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03048.htm

 

There must be some small effect.

 

I do know of the effect of isotopes on the dimensions of crystals of atoms. The atoms all attach themselves in a regular manner, a crystal structure. This mainly would have to do with the size of the atom, its chemical bonding etc, but has a tiny isotope effect, see Physical Review B, Vol 38, No. 8,9/15/1988, Effect of isotope concentration on the lattice parameters of germanium perfect crystals,

R.C. Buscheret et. al.

 

Steve Ross

 

Secondly my claim was that the neutron effect is not confined the nucleus, but to a definable area around the nucleus. See my latest find:

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09022053-atomic-nucleus-beryllium-is-three-times-as-large-as-normal-due-halo

It would seem that the data I need is out there somewhere, there are papers and books to be purchased as and when the money is available; meanwhile I would appreciate your view of the Steve Ross reply and the above reference.

[John Cuthber]

Your first post in this thread said "The e:N line is smooth indicating that it determines atomic radii, "

Now you are saying "I never claimed the amount the atomic radius is affected by the number of neutrons was large or small"

If the number of neutrons determines the atomic radius then it has to be a big effect.

In fact it's tiny as I already pointed out, with data, twice.