tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3102070382234437186.post6723273864454366887..comments2017-12-06T06:00:07.739-08:00Comments on Table of elements. Limits of quantum mechanics.: hfilipenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06344406823520817701noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3102070382234437186.post-7094300282819055242017-09-11T09:35:52.735-07:002017-09-11T09:35:52.735-07:00Dear Steve Harris thank you very much for writing....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.<br /> Sincerely, Henadzi Filipenkahfilipenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06344406823520817701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3102070382234437186.post-45465947345204566662017-06-16T13:14:57.798-07:002017-06-16T13:14:57.798-07:00http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_p...http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_2/4_2_1.html<br /><br />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?Steve Harris, MDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00441192270997429724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3102070382234437186.post-73081289712721069002017-06-16T13:08:49.613-07:002017-06-16T13:08:49.613-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Steve Harris, MDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00441192270997429724noreply@blogger.com