About table of elements. New atomic numbers.

 

table of elements, new atomic numbers for any elements, new chemical elements, about metallic bond

Probably James Chadwick made the mistake of measuring the charges of the nuclei of atoms.

Not exactly an error in the measurements, and that he agreed with the periodic table and the result was treated as a charge equal to 78, as shown in Table 77.6 nucleus for platinum.
result 29,3- longer true 0.3 was obtained for copper, 46.3 for silver has less true at 0.7, and for platinum is less than the “true” only 0.6. Reduction of protons associated with each other shielding measurements. Therefore platinum charge 78 results had to be obtained is less, or in other words at the atomic nucleus charge of platinum over 78 and 82 is equal.
We construct a model of the atomic nucleus. We know that protons and neutrons are in the nucleus. In each subsequent element over a proton, and a few neutrons. Why? The volume is growing faster than the surface. When alpha rays are emitted from the nucleus of a helium nucleus approximately equal energies. By placing the nucleus of a helium atom on the surface of the nucleus, we obtain with some accuracy, that the rest of the neutrons are in the nucleus. And the question as whether and when it is inside a proton nucleus. According to the Law and the Mendeleev Brook rules, as well as the resulting core model designed physical table of the elements.
In this table, platinum is №82. Protons start placed inside the core 72 to the element 75. Not yet open elements.
The table filled with all the cells. Do not Mendeleev table, and complex chemical structure. Lanthanides and actinides, which must be positioned vertically according to their chemical properties, as “home” located under the table horizontally. Periodic law is not only in chemistry but also in physics
Please repeat the experience of James Chadwick to measure the charge of the nucleus of an atom of platinum. The charges of the nuclei of copper and silver can not be questioned. But according to this table of elements built according to the law of Mendeleev and the rule of van Broek since charges hafnium nuclei can be 4 units more than made today at the same weight. To set the conditions at the plant, probably important to know the true charge of the uranium nucleus.
http://matterdark-hfilipen.blogspot.com

The rule of Van den Broeck, a lover of nuclear physics, turned out to be
more general than the periodicity of Mendeleev and the calculations of
the quantum mechanics of the atomic orbitals. The table should be filled
with all cells according to law or rule, and if somebody does not fill
in, this should be explained Law or rule. Therefore, the cells of the
physical table were filled in both at http://matterdark-hfilipen.blogspot.com
and unknown items with numbers 72–75 and 108–111 appeared. Which
required explanation. When examining the results of measuring the
charges of nuclei or atomic numbers by James Chadwick, I noticed that
the charge of the core of platinum is rather not 78, but tends to 82,
which corresponds to the developed table. For nearly 30 years I have
raised the question of the repetition of measurements of the charges of
atomic nuclei. Uranium is probably more charged than accepted, and it is
used at nuclear power plants.

Lithium and beryllium, as a function of temperature, change the crystal lattices in much the same way as scandium and titanium. That speaks about the correctness of our table of chemical elements.

The main problem lies in the fact that by using X-rays determined the crystal lattices of different materials, and why they are, and not the other is not yet known. For example copper crystallizes in the fcc lattice, and iron in the BCC, which when heated becomes FCC is used for heat treatment of steels. Copper by heating the crystal lattice does not change.
The literature provides many factors influencing the crystallization so I decided to remove them as much as possible, and metal model of the article say so perfect, that is, all atoms are identical (pure metal) without inclusions without introduction, without defects, etc. using Hall effect and other data on the properties and calculations Ashcroft and Mermin-, my main determining factor in the type of lattice appeared core of the atom or ion, which has turned out as a result of the transfer of the electrons in the conduction band.
It turned out that the metallic bond is due not only to the socialization of electrons, and the outer electrons and atomic cores, which determine the direction or type of crystal lattice.Changing the metal lattice type it may be associated with the transition of an electron in the conduction band or return it from this zone. The phase transition.I think that phase transitions are possible without changing the lattice type. For example copper. I suppose that in the conduction band can be in copper and one electron from an atom, or maybe two, depending on external conditions.
Now, when microelectronics turned into nanoelectronics and threatens to go to angstromelektronics, it is important to know the patterns of distribution of atoms (atomic size is measured in units of Angstroms) in the crystal lattice of the single crystal. http://natureofcrystalstructure.blogspot.com

The first attempts to classify elements brought triads, then periodicity, then nuclear charges and, perhaps, some new dependence of the organization on the nature of the atoms of chemical elements.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “About table of elements. New atomic numbers.

  1. if there is nothing to do, try to take my table of elements and make of it a volume, i.e. add isotopes on one side with a larger mass, and on the other with a smaller one, you will get a body in which you can look for patterns …

    Like

  2. It turned out that the behavior of crystal lattices, depending on the temperature, lithium and beryllium should be located above scandium and titanium, respectively, according to the table of elements worked out. See the table above.

    Like

  3. to Reedijk, J. Feb 7 2018
    Dear Sir Jan Reedijk, please read my paper.
    Perhaps James Chadwick made the mistake of measuring the charges of atomic nuclei.
    More precisely not an error in the measurements, but in that it agreed with Mendeleyev’s table and the result obtained for platinum 77.6 was treated as a nuclear charge equal to 78, according to the table. When considering the results of measuring the charges of nuclei or atomic numbers by James Chadwick, I noticed that the charge of the core of platinum is rather equal not to 78, but to 82, which corresponds to the developed table. Almost 30 years, I raise the question of the repetition of measurements of the charges of atomic nuclei, because uranium probably has more charge than accepted, and it is used at nuclear power plants.

    Lithium and beryllium, as a function of temperature, change the crystal lattices in much the same way as scandium and titanium. That speaks about the correctness of our table of chemical elements. https://fhenadzi.wordpress.com

    Sincerely Henadzi Filipenka

    Like

  4. Many thanks for your email and manuscript. We regret that as the subject of your study is beyond the scope of the journal we cannot consider it for publication. Scientific Reports publishes original research from all areas of the natural and clinical sciences.
    Thank you very much for your interest.
    Kind Regards,
    Sarah
    Sarah Wells
    Team Leader, Scientific Reports

    Nature Research

    4 Crinan Street London N1 9XW

    What is it “original research”?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s