 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
32 to 270 picometers for He and Fr respectively
last 3 rows had unavailable data and a default 200 pm was used
decided not to use the suggested subject of "how small are your balls"
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'pov-periodic000.png' (212 KB)
Preview of image 'pov-periodic000.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Does the atom's coloring follow a particular scheme?
alphaQuad wrote:
> 32 to 270 picometers for He and Fr respectively
>
> last 3 rows had unavailable data and a default 200 pm was used
>
> decided not to use the suggested subject of "how small are your balls"
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Skip Talbot <ski### [at] aol com> wrote:
> Does the atom's coloring follow a particular scheme?
yes and no
the colors defined are those defined for atoms found in most drugs for the
molecule exporter
all others are random with a "toodark" filter. (thats seems to have missed
Boron)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'legend.png' (103 KB)
Preview of image 'legend.png'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> 32 to 270 picometers for He and Fr respectively
>
> last 3 rows had unavailable data and a default 200 pm was used
>
> decided not to use the suggested subject of "how small are your balls"
You can find some more Data at http://www.webelements.com/
some Examples:
Pr Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 185
Ac Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 195
U Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 175
Ho Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 175
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
haichen,
Thank you for that effort but it seems I need to know where you found this
data, something more than a domain.
Almost everything but the last row:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/properties/text/image-flash/atomic-radius.html
And no sanity seems to exist there as you can never tell what to expect to
appear after a click.
Back button brings up different charts, etc than what was there previously.
(heinous indeed)
Pr Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 185
Ac Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 195
U Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 175
Ho Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 175
I find a descrepancy and do not see U or Ac. Can you account for the
descrepancy of Pr and which is the actual value? (Where are all of them?
preferably in some text format that can be read.)
Pr 247
Nd 206
Pm 205
Sm 238
Eu 231
Gd 233
Tb 225
Dy 228
Ho 226
Er 226
Tm 222
Yb 222
Hopfully, with some assistance, there will be a new and better periodic in
this thread soon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/08/25 12:23:
> haichen,
>
> Thank you for that effort but it seems I need to know where you found this
> data, something more than a domain.
>
>
> Almost everything but the last row:
>
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/properties/text/image-flash/atomic-radius.html
>
> And no sanity seems to exist there as you can never tell what to expect to
> appear after a click.
> Back button brings up different charts, etc than what was there previously.
> (heinous indeed)
>
> Pr Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 185
> Ac Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 195
> U Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 175
> Ho Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 175
>
> I find a descrepancy and do not see U or Ac. Can you account for the
> descrepancy of Pr and which is the actual value? (Where are all of them?
> preferably in some text format that can be read.)
>
> Pr 247
No discrepancy.
> Nd 206
> Pm 205
Those 2 looks to small, but it should be OK.
> Sm 238
> Eu 231
A little small.
> Gd 233
Still small
> Tb 225
> Dy 228
A little big
> Ho 226
> Er 226
> Tm 222
> Yb 222
>
> Hopfully, with some assistance, there will be a new and better periodic in
> this thread soon.
>
>
>
>
The lantanoids and actinoids are particuliar in that the orbitals and sub
orbitals are not filled sequentialy. In the rest of the groups, the various sub
orbitals receive 1 electron each before any get a second one. S receive 1, then
P receive 3, one per axis, then S receive the second, then the rest of P is filled.
This sequance breaks down with the frouth orbital order. More paired electrons =
smaler atomic radii.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
At the feast of ego everyone leaves hungry.
Bentley's House of Coffee and Tea, Tucson, AZ
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>
> last 3 rows had unavailable data and a default 200 pm was used
I'll say! Some of those post-actinoids are known by something like 3 or 4
atoms in a cloud chamber, and have half-lives of a few milliseconds. Need
to get the caliper in there real fast! Two of them (Uuh and Uuo) were even
imaginary, making measurements even more difficult. (Look up "Victor Ninov"
for more about this creative alchemy.)
As far as i can tell, Uus hasn't even been discovered yet; and Uud, Uuh,
Uuo, Uup, Uuq, and Uut are still in the process of verification, since their
atoms decay literally faster than they can be detected. I imagine that
quantum mechanics can predict their atomic radii, but that may be a
pointless exercise.
I don't know why the lanthanoids' data would be missing (especially
considering that francium's wasn't missing!), but i'd imagine that their
radii would be similar to lanthanum's. Considering this, and looking at
Alain's data, your lanthanum atom looks way too small. What value did you
have for that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Cousin Ricky" wrote:
> I don't know why the lanthanoids' data would be missing (especially
> considering that francium's wasn't missing!), but i'd imagine that their
> radii would be similar to lanthanum's. Considering this, and looking at
> Alain's data, your lanthanum atom looks way too small. What value did you
> have for that?
The final size went through a few transformations.
What we see in my models and others is an approximate hydrogen/carbon size
ratio of 0.6/1
povatomicsize {
; atomicradii.txt from jpg TABLES20.JPG and S21
; http://www.chemcool.com/referencetables/tableS.htm
after division
; Carbon = 1.475676
; H = 0.6
http://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/products/csd/radii/
"van der Waals radius of the element as used in CSD software [see Note C]"
after division
; Carbon = 1
; H = 0.705882
First source was used and if (0) { use the second source (angstroms * 100)
divided by 61.66667
and divided by 170
Explaining the reason for atom appearance in this initial render and the
need for a single source.
La was 138 pm and first data source was used. Second source La was default 2
So what was 0?
1 H 37
2 He 32
3 Li 155
4 Be 112
5 B 98
6 C 91
7 N 92
8 O 65
9 F 57
10 Ne 51
11 Na 190
12 Mg 160
13 Al 143
14 Si 132
15 P 128
16 S 127
17 Cl 97
18 Ar 88
19 K 235
20 Ca 197
21 Sc 162
22 Ti 145
23 V 134
24 Cr 130
25 Mn 135
26 Fe 126
27 Co 125
28 Ni 124
29 Cu 128
30 Zn 138
31 Ga 141
32 Ge 137
33 As 139
34 Se 140
35 Br 112
36 Kr 103
37 Rb 248
38 Sr 215
39 Y 178
40 Zr 160
41 Nb 146
42 Mo 139
43 Tc 136
44 Ru 134
45 Rh 134
46 Pd 137
47 Ag 144
48 Cd 171
49 In 166
50 Sn 162
51 Sb 159
52 Te 142
53 I 132
54 Xe 124
55 Cs 267
56 Ba 222
57 La 138
58 Ce 0
59 Pr 0
60 Nd 0
61 Pm 0
62 Sm 0
63 Eu 0
64 Gd 0
65 Tb 0
66 Dy 0
67 Ho 0
68 Er 0
69 Tm 0
70 Yb 0
71 Lu 0
72 Hf 167
73 Ta 149
74 W 141
75 Re 137
76 Os 135
77 Ir 136
78 Pt 139
79 Au 146
80 Hg 160
81 Tl 171
82 Pb 175
83 Bi 170
84 Po 167
85 At 145
86 Rn 134
87 Fr 270
88 Ra 233
89 Ac 0
90 Th 0
91 Pa 0
92 U 0
93 Np 0
94 Pu 0
95 Am 0
96 Cm 0
97 Bk 0
98 Cf 0
99 Es 0
100 Fm 0
101 Md 0
102 No 0
103 Lr 0
104 Rf 0
105 Db 0
106 Sg 0
107 Bh 0
108 Hs 0
109 Mt 0
110 Ds 0
111 Rg 0
112 Uub 0
113 Uut 0
114 Uuq 0
115 Uup 0
116 Uuh 0
117 Uus 0
118 Uuo 0
s s
s s p p p p p p
s s p p p p p p
s s d d d d d d d d d d p p p p p p
s s d d d d d d d d d d p p p p p p
s s d d d d d d d d d d p p p p p p
s s d d d d d d d d d d p p p p p p
f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
f f f f f f f f f f f f f f
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
a molecular physics index with vlink color:
http://home.earthlink.net/~alpha-quadrant/physics.html
because their index had none
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/elements_as_atoms/states2.html
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/a3.html
(java applet)
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/atomic_structure.html
(loads an applet)
applets:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets_ST.html
(for backup should links fail)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alain wrote:
> > Pr Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 185
> > Ho Atomic radius (empirical) [/pm]: 175
> > Pr 247
> No discrepancy.
> > Nd 206
> > Pm 205
> Those 2 looks to small, but it should be OK.
> > Sm 238
> > Eu 231
> A little small.
> > Gd 233
> Still small
> > Tb 225
> > Dy 228
> A little big
> > Ho 226
As much as I hate stating the obvious, your statement "No discrepancy"
warrants it.
Pr
185 != 247
A difference of 62 picometers is what was meant by "discrepancy".
Ho
175 != 226
Amazing statements should have amazing explanations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
