July 20, 2019, 12:04:46 PM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: electron configuration question  (Read 24455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jdurg

  • Banninator
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1366
  • Mole Snacks: +106/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • I am NOT a freak.
Re:electron configuration question
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2005, 02:04:59 PM »
I understand.   ;D  I am fully aware that the electrons don't orbit in a nice circular pattern.  I was just using the 1s orbital because it's a spherical one so the electron, while not moving in a planetary like orbit, will still be moving around in that spherical area the vast majority of the time.

I think your last sentence pretty much sums it up.  The 1s shell is simply a mathetmatical solution stating that 95% of the time the 1s electron will be found in that region.  The electron, meanwhile, can zip in and around that area in any which direction it wants to.  It has enough energy to move closer to the nucleus and then move back away without falling into it.  If the nucleus gets too big, however, the electron would then need a larger amount of energy in order to obtain the speed needed to move away from the nucleus.  Otherwise if it got a bit too close it wouldn't be able to come back out and would collapse into the nucleus.  I think it would be a process similar to electron capture where the inner electron gets sucked into the nucleus and is anhilliated.  When you get to a certain point, the nucleus will be so big that the inner electrons simply can't get away from the pull.

Mitch, I was guestimating an atomic number of 9400.  For Element 9400, it's atomic mass would be egregiously huge!   ;D
"A real fart is beefy, has a density greater than or equal to the air surrounding it, consists

Oldtimer

  • Guest
1s is supposed to be spherical, if it can be described.
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2005, 11:32:32 PM »
Those ideals don't work out anywhere but in 1st year chem. Energy shells don't even work long past Organic. We could go to solid State Physics, but that's rife with confusions in definitions as well.

At some point we'll just have to say the sum components of the Atom are something requiring either a classified document we can't read - or another model to explain all the actions of its' componentry.

Wave energy is nice, doesn't explain mass transfer. Mass transfer never really occurs subatomically. And covalent bonds are a misnomer. We're in a mess! Now add experimental elements that haven't been confirmed to exist, and have never been combined with anything for further understanding. Why do you guys' listen to Physicists? Haven't you learned your lesson about guys promoting their own multi-billion dollar fancy dream to "explore" their use of a pencil? SSC anyone? They've already taken over the Space Station {as far as I'm concerned}to study solar and planetary forces.


Forget your micro gravity issues right away. We don't know what we are doing and they're trying to explain why to suit their own agenda.
Andy ::)

Oldtimer

  • Guest
Man am I in a bad mood, I'm hitting the hay.
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2005, 12:26:57 AM »
.
As far as the Space Station.
I just wish the "super" purity concerns of at least medical drugs were addressed. Then there are the engineering aspects of extremely accurate electric eyes, nervous system developement, and rapid solidification works for  countless real world needs.

Pratt Whitneys' Rapid Solidification machine is so massive, and all they can do is gripe about the purity levels required to make simple ceramic jet engine parts. what about some computer chips and body organs like ear drums etc.?

Oh well, good nite and good day people.

Andy

Offline Mitch

  • General Chemist
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5281
  • Mole Snacks: +376/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns
    • Chemistry Blog
Re:electron configuration question
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2005, 07:24:25 AM »
Define experimental elements? The chemistry of elements 104-108 are being studied intensely. And chemistry experiments with element 114 and a new better chemistry experiment with element 112 will be done during the first half of next year.
Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums.
1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation.
2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity.
3. Forum Supports LaTex

Oldtimer

  • Guest
Experimental Elements.
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2005, 09:03:24 AM »
Rutherfordium 104
22Ne + 242Pu  260104Rf + 4 1n

Isolation of an observable quantity of rutherfordium has never been achieved.

Hassium 108
208Bi + 58Fe  265Hs + 1n

Isolation of an observable quantity of hassium has never been achieved, and may well never be. This is because hassium decays very rapidly through the emission of a-particles.

Roentgenium 111
209Bi + 64Ni  272Rg + 1n

Isolation of an observable quantity has never been achieved, and may well never be.


This recurring theme plays across the entire spectrum. It is my understanding that the first observance of elements like these was in Nuclear test blast chambers. So by flinging atoms about with extreme abandon and extreme heat and pressure they discovered that they could recreate this effect and the short living elements.

What a waste of time and resources.

I like the crystalline view of elements. That an accumillated {over billions of years} collection of subatomic particles define how these elements behave is enough for me to deal with just fine. Whether other elements actually exist or not with this effort of time and resources will not affect our life in any positive direction. At some point we just have to admit that the Earth is our chemistry set for some time into the future, we can not break the boundaries of the 'workable' periodic table - and don't need to.

Andy

Offline Mitch

  • General Chemist
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5281
  • Mole Snacks: +376/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns
    • Chemistry Blog
Re:electron configuration question
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2005, 01:48:58 PM »
You don't need an observable amount of an element to be able to study its chemistry. Some fundamental chemical principles are always at work regardless of sample size such as the law of mass action to think of one.

Hs269 has a half-life of 9.7 seconds that is more than enough time, to quickly generate the element do a chemical reaction and then test to see how it behaves relative to its homologues. Just because an element decays, doesn't mean its chemistry is different.

Studying the chemical properties of a new element isn't a great drain on the national treasury. Our budget is lower than most would imagine it costs to keep a program like this going. Too low in my humble opinion. And again with any federally funded program there is always more than just science at work. Nuclear chemistry research produces nuclear trained PhDs that will go out and be experts and stewards of the nations nuclear stockpiles. Just because you disagree with the value of the research doesn't mean the research shouldn't be done. And one never knows what you'll find.

Plus do you want all the elements named after Russians and Germans! :P
« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 01:51:05 PM by Mitch »
Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums.
1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation.
2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity.
3. Forum Supports LaTex

Oldtimer

  • Guest
Like Red Mercury - who will really benefit from these elements again?
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2005, 01:08:46 AM »
.
I can think of no appreciable need for anything like that, unless I want to rapidly oxidize something and blow it up with a grand violent explosive force. But to be honest, I'm not a Nuclear professional, and it may be a bit of professional pride, but spending the millions from this endeavor on Geothermal Power generation, or even just outright buying energy wasting homes to demolish them would be a much wiser expense.

And really, Russia has always claimed things like that before us anyway. Does it change anything? Not really because it's almost out there with the mind control experiments and the telekinesis stuff.

To me trips to Mars and fiddling with radioactive material are in the same ballpark. Certainly people benefit from the knowledge of this work, but it isn't me. I cannot be convinced that a more powerful N- bomb is worth anything. And Nuclear power is worse than retarded, it's a boast to future generations about knowledge that we pretend to utilize most effectively today.

Andy
« Last Edit: November 05, 2005, 01:11:38 AM by Oldtimer »

Offline Mitch

  • General Chemist
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5281
  • Mole Snacks: +376/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • "I bring you peace." -Mr. Burns
    • Chemistry Blog
Re:electron configuration question
« Reply #37 on: November 05, 2005, 02:06:24 AM »
Its okay, I won't fault your professional prejudices.
Most Common Suggestions I Make on the Forums.
1. Start by writing a balanced chemical equation.
2. Don't confuse thermodynamic stability with chemical reactivity.
3. Forum Supports LaTex

Sponsored Links