## Friday, June 9, 2017

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

skip to main |
skip to sidebar
## Friday, June 9, 2017

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.
## About Me

Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

- hfilipen
- my works: http://henadzifilipenka.blogspot.com http://natureofcrystalstructure.blogspot.com http://structurecrystal.blogspot.com/ http://tableelements.blogspot.com

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

ReplyDeleteYou'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?