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.

## 3 Comments:

This comment has been removed by the author.

http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_2/4_2_1.html

You've got Hf at 76, but the Bohr-Moseley model would put it at Z=75, since Z-1 = 74 for the Bohr-Mosley model. Of course relativistic effects are already starting to increase binding energies here over the classical model, so all elements heavier than this come out with Z's too high by the classic model. But does anybody think relativity is wrong? Why can't we use relativistically-corrected binding energies to find Z?

Dear Steve Harris thank you very much for writing. You write about relativistic effects in heavy elements. It seems to me that with respect to these parameters, heavy elements hardly differ from light elements.

Sincerely, Henadzi Filipenka

## Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home