User talk:Dirac66/Archive 2 (2011-2012)

3D Phase diagram

If you're interested, see Talk:Phase diagram. H Padleckas (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Water, hybridisation et al

Thnaks for checking those references on VSEPR theory. I did not have time, but thought they were as you say. The user clearly has a bee in his bonnet about hybridisation in water. He has added much the same unsourced material to Ether, Orbital hybridisation and Molecular geometry. A little learning is a dangerous thing sometimes. Take a look at what I did to those and correct if I was over harsh. I also commented on his talk page after welcoming him. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it might have been too harsh to say on his (or her) talk page that he is not following Wikipedia guidelines. He did after all base his comments on two articles in refereed journals which more or less support his viewpoint, although he has gone too far in interpreting them. But in this case there are many other sources which make similar errors, in particular trying to compare localized bonding and delocalized MO descriptions without realizing their equivalence in describing the ground state. After all, most undergraduate introductions to quantum mechanics stop at two-electron wavefunctions.

I try to view such contributors in the same light as students who ask confused questions, and use their errors as a guide to what they and probably others do not understand and to what needs clarification. In this case, we could use a clear explanation of the equivalence of localized and delocalized descriptions, which I am unable to find in Wikipedia at the moment.

Perhaps this could be added as a section in the article on Slater determinant, since the invariance to unitary transformations is basically a property of this form of wavefunction. Then the other articles in question can be rewritten with a brief mention of the equivalence linked to the detailed explanation. Yes, I realize this will take some time to complete.Dirac66 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Found a source for what I have in mind: Levine IN, "Quantum Chemistry" (4th edn Prentice-Hall 1991), Sec.15.8 Localized MOs. Instead of the Slater determinants article, it could also become the intro to Localized molecular orbitals, which now only discusses "how" to transform to LMOs and not "why".Dirac66 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mer

I'm confused as to the difference, and why we have both a -mer article and a -mer wiktionary article. Bit of a mess IMHO, which as I cannot clarify, I'll leave as is. Widefox (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I rarely look at Wiktionary. In this case it seems to give the meaning of mer in other languages, whereas Wikipedia gives its meanings in English. Dirac66 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes wikt:mer is only other languages, but wikt:-mer covers the English and chemistry. Both are now linked so maybe the -mer article should be transwikied? (probably my rantings on your page should be followed up there?!) Widefox (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what transwiki would copy from where to where. But if you feel that one of these articles is missing useful content which is now in another article, go ahead and copy it in. Dirac66 (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Isotopes of Samarium

I just corrected my talk about the uniqueness of the low end alpha emission unstability condition of EE60Sm146 that you commented on and apologize for my previous errors. The importance of this is related to the occurrence of low end alpha emission instability in the case of the 60Sm Samarium element. Most occurrences of alpha occur at the high AMU end, where you get a B- emission conversion of a neutron to a proton, and I can't think of a reason for such an incident where here, you can see that additional neutrons are needed for stability. Sorry I didn't notice this sooner.WFPMWFPM (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC) PS: in the meantime I,m promoting a set of "stability profile charts" as a means of trying to understand the organization of halflife data in the range of from one second to 10E^+18seconds and have one in Talk:Isotopes of lead. Would appreciate your comments.WFPM (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I can contribute any more on this then I have in the past (in my archives). As I have said before, I am a physical chemist with limited knowledge of nuclear physics, and I don't really understand this discussion of samarium. Dirac66 (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the isotope 62Sm is where the emission of the EE2He4 (+2 charged) alpha particle is reported as being detected. And it's occurring in the isotope EE62Sm146 which would otherwise be stable, and makes Sm146 unique in that it's the first element to emit the alpha on the low mass end of the stable isotope range with only 2 more extra neutrons more than its EE predecessor EE62Sm 144, (with 3+ per cent constituency). And with more extra neutrons, the nucleus becomes stable. So for some reason, some of these Sm146 atoms want to dump off an alpha particle and drop back 2 atomic numbers with the same number of excess neutrons. I guess you would say that that reduces their accumulated protons static charge, and with regard to that the question becomes, Why doesn't it happen anywhere else in this series?. In 64Gd Gadolinium you get alpha emission, but not within the EE isotope range of stability. And while were on the subject, if an isotope is calculated to have a half life of 1.03x10E^8 years, how can we say categorically that none of it is stable? Nobody seems to be concerned about that. Also, do you know what the physical shape of the alpha particle would look like in accordance with the Quantum electrodynamics concept? Thank you anyway and sorry to bother you.WFPM (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I will answer the simplest question "if an isotope is calculated to have a half life of 1.03x10E^8 years, how can we say categorically that none of it is stable?" The answer is that the half life is based on the observed decay rate for much shorter times, and we assume that the decay is exponential as observed for other isotopes with shorter half-lives, so that all of the isotope will eventually disappear at times much longer than the half-life. We cannot know categorically that deviations will never occur, but the scientific method is to assume that observed laws are true until and unless there is evidence for deviations. Dirac66 (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine! But let's say that say 10% of what we have is stable and 90% is unstable. Then the decay rate would be changing for only 90% 0f the mass and would therefor imply only a slightly greater than true halflife and how long would it take to find that out? Do they just make an assumption or actually try to find that out? In other words I can see how they make the assumption and the calculation but I don't see how they can be sure that none of it is stable, like in the case of EE62Sm146.WFPM (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC) And the situation is even worse for 147 and 148. I guess they must just make the assumption. Sorry to bother you.WFPM (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes we assume that a long-lived isotope such as Sm146 is in a single quantum state which follows exponential decay, unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. One type of evidence would be deviation from an exponential decay law. Also, if some of what is thought to be a single isotope is stable and some is unstable, that implies that there are significant populations of two different quantum states. If there are two states with different energies, we can observe a gamma-ray transition from one to the other. From the list of isotopes of samarium, this is in fact the case for Sm144 which has a stable state and a long-lived excited state called Sm144m (m = metastable = long-lived). So it is possible to observe stable and metastable states of the same isotope, but they have not been found for Sm146. Sorry but I cannot explain this difference in terms of your model. Dirac66 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But an exponential decay law could exist and only apply to a portion of the remaining sample, while the rest just sits there. And thanks for the comment. The uniqueness of EE62Sm146 is that it's the only element that is stable (on the low extra neutron side) and then unstable with 2 more extra neutrons. And then when it becomes stable with more extra neutrons it makes you wonder.WFPM (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If the rest just sits there and has no decay probability, it must be in a different quantum state. For Sm146 there is no evidence (as far as I know) that this is true. And people do search for these things - there are lots of papers in Phys. Rev. and other journals whose titles start with "Search for ...", meaning that some poor graduate student (or team of students) spent a few years unsuccessfully looking for some effect. Of course someone may still find one day that Sm146 (or any other isotope) has a previously unknown new state, but for now there is no evidence. Dirac66 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC

You've got this dogma that everything within your isotope category is identical, so there's no possibility for 2 different populations to be within the same category. And since the category is about multiple constituent pieces accumulation, the possibility exists that the pieces (isomers) could be accumulated into 2 different categories of constituent accumulation. And either one or both could be stable. I've dealt with this in the electrochemical cell adequacy analysis procedures, (Battery adequacy calculations). I'm just pointing out data inconsistencies in an effort to minimize ambiguities and/or errors as should be done in these matters. I looked up Metastability and what a can of worms. Even implying that things are stable at 0 degrees kelvin. I'd like to know what OO9F18 does at 0 degrees Kelvin. Cheers.WFPM (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC) See Beta-decay stable isobars

My "dogma" is based on the evidence - if there is no evidence that Sm146 has two populations, it is not for Wikipedia to invent the possibility that they might someday be found. I am going to terminate this discussion now, as I don't think it is going anywhere useful. Dirac66 (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right as concerns the problems with 62sm146. It's either an alpha emitter or it isn't. If it is, than we have atoms going from EE62Sm146 to EE60Nd142. which is no big deal. But the assertion that EE62Sm146 cannot be stable (for what reason?) Is important. And that there can be no stable isotopes of EE62Sm146 is also important. So the Result of the information persual process is to determine why 62Sm146 would not be stable. And its decay to 60Nd142 suggests that it is a lower energy content isotope. I don't know how to rationalize all these irregularities, only to find them and point them out. But if an increased neutron makes the atom stable, then we have the proposition that the (paired and extra) neutrons are able to overcome the destabilizing effects of the accumulated protons, such that an equilibrium balance can be achieved At each accumulated deuteron number such as to minimize the structural unbalance caused be the (proton or proton-neutron) accumulation process. I certainly do not urge Wikipedia to invent anything but to allow presentation of the data that might better organize the information therein. I don't know why the authorities on this data don't do so.WFPM (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC) SineBot-->

Okay I talk too much! but please check the reported halflife of OO47Ag114 (versus the OO's 112 and 116) and tell me if The discrepancy doesn't merit an explanation. If I were computer wise, I could probably cook up a bot that would ask the same questions. But I'm only an interested persuer of rational data in these subject matters and can only use the analysis measures that I know about to check data reporting.WFPM (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Octet rule

After my grievances with the octet rule page, I have tidied up/corrected it a little. I don't believe the previous author really understood the modern theoretical explanation of the rule and have thus provided a basic explanation through the example of sodium chloride and thermodynamic ideas. I know you said that inclusion of this material would make the article more complicated, but I blieve it necessary to avoid proliferation of some of the nonsense ideas regarding inherent stabilities of full shells (this is arguably true for the halogens, but just vomit in most cases).

I have removed discussion of s,p,d subshells because its simply not useful at the level of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcbccouk (talk • contribs) 08:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on the article talk page. I agree that stability should be discussed correctly from energetics (thermodynamics). However s,p,d subshells should still be included to explain why shells of eight electrons are favoured in stable compounds of main group atoms. Dirac66 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Bibliographies

Dirac66, thanks for your contributions to multiple lists of important publications. Have you considered joining WikiProject Bibliographies? You could add your name to the list of participants or put the user template {{User Bibliographies}} on your page. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Critical point (thermodynamics)

Thanks for the explanation. Since it looks like you know exactly what you are talking about, might I ask that you explain a little more? I'm not the worst at math and physics, and I had deducted that "p" meant pressure and "V" meant volume, but the meaning of "∂"" in this case is not immediately obvious to me. From your explanation I can only assume this is a standard notation for derivatives, but the derivative article only mentions the use of Δ and d (though I must admit I only scanned it briefly). Also, I don't understand what we're deriving from and what this original formula and its first and second derivatives represent in real life, so to me it looks like a nice mathematical curiosity without any obvious link to anything in real life. Then again, the content may just be too technical for me...

    — SkyLined (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This section does require more calculus than the ordinary derivative (df/dx) of a function of one variable f(x). The notation ∂ refers to a partial derivative of a function of several variables f(x, y, ...); (∂f/∂x)_y is the partial derivative when the function is differentiated with respect to x while y is constant. See the article on partial derivative for more detail.

And the second derivative of its function is the derivative of its derivative. For example, if distance is a function of time, the (first) derivative of this function is the velocity and the second derivative is the acceleration. See second derivative. Dirac66 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with partial derivatives. However, can you tell me what the original function is that the partial derivative and second derivative are derived from? I think having would explain what these formulas mean a little better.     — SkyLined (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The first and second partial derivatives here are written $\left({\frac {\partial p}{\partial V}}\right)_{T}and\left({\frac {\partial ^{2}p}{\partial V^{2}}}\right)_{T}$

These are analogous to first and second ordinary derivatives such as ${\frac {dp}{dV}}\ and{\frac {d^{2}p}{dV^{2}}}$ and the original function is the pressure p.

However for the partial derivatives, p is considered a function of TWO independent variables V AND T. The notation above means that the derivatives are taken with respect to V as independent variable, and T is treated as a constant.

There is also another pair of partial derivatives (not used in this article) with derivatives taken with respect to T and V held constant, written as $\left({\frac {\partial p}{\partial T}}\right)_{V}and\left({\frac {\partial ^{2}p}{\partial T^{2}}}\right)_{V}$

I hope this helps a little. The article on partial derivatives may help too. Dirac66 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dirac66. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, Dirac66. You have new messages at Double sharp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Double sharp (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help from the smarter

Hello there! I'm (rarely lately, but am planning to return for active editing sometime soon) working on fluorine. Got three questions and you were recommended for me as a man who "know[s] a lot or hard-core chemistry." So it'd be neat if you could help me.

1. HF/SbF₅. While I already know there is probably no "H[SbF₆] with naked protons," I wanna make it sure. Made a short look over the Net; says no protons can exist in solids, but probably in gases. What would you say? Could there be a high vacuum geasous "H[SbF₆] with naked protons"? (also, for me actually, could it be even more acidic if we use AuF₅ instead? just give an opinion) (I have an impression on the topic, but more words could be useful)
2. Low melting point. Does it have anything to do with the partial second bonds found in Cl₂, Br₂, and I₂, but not F₂?
3. I can't understand why BiF₅ is polymeric rather than molecular. (I understand the rationale for BeF₂...is it something similar (opposite)?) It could be neat to explain that in a few words.

It could also very neat if you colud provide any sources, but if not, any help would still be very appreciated. (Have also personal interest on each of the three, so...please explain whatever you can) :) Thanks a lot, in advance--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Mention of naked protons in the gas phase refers to H⁺ isolated from anything else, for example in outer space which is a high vacuum with a few particles, mostly unattached protons and electrons. So the naked protons in outer space are just H⁺, not H⁺ attached to any anion. As for H[SbF₆], I am not aware of any reports on its existence in the gas phase. If it did exist, it would presumably be roughly as acidic as in the solid phase, but in reality I think it dissociates instead of boiling.
2. Since you mentioned fluorine at first, I assume you are asking why the melting point of fluorine is low. In general, melting points and boiling points depend on the strength of intermolecular forces. F₂ melts (and boils) at lower T than Cl₂ because the force between two F₂ molecules are weaker than between two Cl₂ molecules. Since these molecules have no permanent dipole moments, the forces in question are London dispersion forces between the induced dipole moments. These depend on the polarizability of the molecules which in turn depend on their size (volume). Cl₂ is larger than F₂, so its electron cloud is more polarizable, so the forces between Cl₂ molecules are larger. See the chapter on Intermolecular forces in most general chemistry books.
3. I will think more before answering this one. Dirac66 (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, as you probably realize #3 is a harder question, because it involves an energy comparison of two possible structures - molecular and extended. Quantum chemistry (ab initio calculations) has taught us that such comparisons can be very complicated due to many competing factors. I would guess that the molecular structure has rather weak bonds due to the Bi-F size mismatch, so that the extended structure wins because there are more bonds, which have considerable ionic character. But my guess is not sufficient to include in Wikipedia - we need a reference to a real research article, probably an ab initio calculation. Dirac66 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments on points 1 and 3. Really thanks. Clear, understandable..you're great :) The point 2: I actually have a very basic understanding what causes the m.p. to be high or low. Screwing around the Russian Wiki, I noticed that it says that the low bond order of F₂ (exactly 1.00, as compared with Cl₂'s 1.12) causes the low m.p. Is it possible at least slightly?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We have to distinguish here between intramolecular (within one molecule) and intermolecular (between different molecules) quantities. I can not read the original Russian sentence, but in English a bond order of 1.12 would usually mean the bond order between the two Cl atoms in the same molecule. It is true that this bond order can slightly exceed 1.0 due to slight hybridization with 3d orbitals. This can strengthen the Cl-Cl bond in each molecule, but will NOT affect the melting or boiling point which depend on the ease of separating molecules from each other and therefore only on intermolecular forces.

However the slight d-orbital hybridization on a Cl atom will also permit a little bonding with Cl atoms in adjacent molecules. This can be considered as a partial second bond (in your words above) which does contribute to intermolecular forces and therefore to the melting and boiling points. So the answer is yes, slightly, provided you specify that you are talking about the intermolecular bonds. Dirac66 (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I expected to see! Just needed to be confirmed. Thank you very much!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

J. W. Gibbs

Hi. Thanks for the kind words about the Gibbs article. I notice that the French version claims Gibbs was in Skull & Bones, which is not mentioned in any biography and seems exceedingly unlikely. Also, the citation given there is to an article that merely mentions Gibbs as a Yalie. I'd fix that myself, but since you've been working on it perhaps I'd best leave it to you. Also, I've been thinking about whether it might be best to order the discussion of Gibbs's work by subject (like in the French version), rather than chronologically. If you feel like adjusting that, please be my guest. Best regards, Eb.hoop (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Re Skull and Bones, the second paragraph of the cited article by Jarrett mentions Gibbs as a Yalie. The penultimate sentence of the same paragraph adds "It is worth noting that every name I have mentioned, including the fictitious ones, were members of Yale's famous secret society, Skull and Bones, except for those few who matriculated before Bones was founded in 1832." This would seem to include Gibbs who was born in 1839. When I started my recent revisions of the French article, the claim re Skull and Bones had a "réf. nécessaire" tag since 2008. I wondered about the claim myself so I Googled and found this reference, which I chose over some others because it it is signed and published in a reputable journal. I haven't read any biography of Gibbs, but perhaps membership in "Skull and Bones" was so standard for "in" students (such as the son of a Yale prof who was independently wealthy) that the biography authors didn't mention it. Is membership in "Skull and Bones" any more surprising than membership in a Greek-letter fraternity? Adolescents tend to like catchy names.

And I'm glad you like my ordering of the French article by subject, which of course enables readers to quickly find a particular topic. I certainly agree that the English article should be reordered similarly, but this will involve some thought and it may be best that you do it since it is you have been thinking recently in detail about the English article. Best regards Dirac66 (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the bios by M.J. Klein (both in the Procs. of the Gibbs Symposium and in the Dict. of Scientific Biography), and also at the bio. by Rukeyser, and there's no mention of Skull & Bones. Also, Gibbs strikes me as probably the least clubbable Yalie of all times. I'll look for the other existing bio, by L.P. Wheeler, and get back to you on this point.

As for the reordering of the topics, I don't feel up to it at the moment. I guess the problem is that if there's going to be a detailed biographical discussion at all, it's going to be largely about Gibbs's research anyway, since there are almost no other biographical facts about him worth mentioning. I'll give it some more thought to this. Cheers, Eb.hoop (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The article List of Skull and Bones members does not mention Gibbs among its notable members. But perhaps one of us could post the question on the talk page of that article, asking if the claim of Jarrett should be considered reliable. The List of members article has many references and hopefully someone with access to the documents can check the more complete lists. Regards, Dirac66 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I followed your suggestion and asked about Gibbs in the talk page for the list of Skull & Bones members, so far without results. I've checked Wheeler's bio., and it says that there is "little record of participation in extracurricular activities on his part. He was a member of Brothers in Unity, one of two societies which at that time included all of the undergraduate body, but there is no evidence that he took part in any of the debates or other activities of the society" (p. 23). That's it on the subject of extracurriculars as far as Wheeler's concerned. It's not conclusive, but it's strongly suggestive that the claim that he was in Skull & Bones is probably untrue.

I think I'm done with editing the English-language page for the foreseeable future. Perhaps you, or someone else, might be interested in submitting it for a GA review at some point. - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I will concede the point that there is insufficient evidence for Gibbs' membership in Skull and Bones. Jarrett's article does not give its source for the inclusion of Gibbs, and is insufficient to overcome the non-mention of Skull and Bones in all the Gibbs biographies. Perhaps Jarrett just took it from one of the many rumors flying around the Internet (and elsewhere?). So I will remove the statement from the French article, at least until someone comes up with a more reliable reference. Perhaps you could add an explanation on the French talk page, as it is you who have read the bios. (If you don't want to write in French, write something in English and I will try to translate it next week.) Dirac66 (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Spherically symmetrical

Hi! I was re-reading the Talk:Atomic nucleus article where my Talk:Nuclear model was eliminated into and noted that you had corrected the "incorrect" concept of spherically symmetrical for the shape of the alpha particle. Except that it still appears in the caption. Should I pursue that and note that the accumulation process can also apply to cubes and cylinders with different types of configurations and with nearly the same packing problems but not necessarily the same stability rationale? Cheers.WFPM (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the image in the article, but not the image on the talk page. As I understand it, Wikipedia policy is different for articles and talk pages. An article is subject to continual correction in order to produce the best and most error-free collective product possible. However a talk page is a record of individual signed contributions to a discussion (like the minutes of a meeting), so we do not correct the contributions of other editors even if they contain errors.Dirac66 (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds complicated! Particularly when you disagree with the talk version. And Oh yes, I have imported a chart File:Modified chart of the nuclides.jpg and I wonder if you find anything of interest in it. I think it improves one's understanding of the logic of some of the nuclear change details. What do you think?WFPM (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Try File:Modified chart of the nuclides.jpg When I call this up in Search I get the file! Why is that? Gremlins?

Strange. Last week I did see a chart, but now it seems to have been deleted. Dirac66 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There were 2. and 1 was deleted. but I can still call 1 up on my search but not on here? I was hoping you would look at it's organization of the data and tell me what you think. You can see the Stability trend lines and stability range relationships between isotopes and why we need the individual element stability profile charts to fill in the details.WFPM (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC) And why you need a base 10 log halflifetime value for each unstable isotope for numerical comparison purposes.WFPM (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, what I can call up is a copy that is eligible to be transferred to commons and I don't know about that.WFPM (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I called my son over east, and he was able to get it from Search. I hope you can too.WFPM (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found it with Search, so your file is not lost. Probably the link above does not work because of some syntax error.

Anyway, the chart is very impressive. However I am not a nuclear physicist, and I don't really have the time to consider its advantages and disadvantages in detail. Sorry. Dirac66 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh! I'm not a nuclear physicist either. Just an old and worn out Engineer. But I can see a light at the end of the tunnel, related to finding out more about the atom if we pin down the correct information on this atomic physics stuff, but everybody is too preoccupied and otherwise busy. And my models have something to do with it. Have you read Hazen? On Superconductivity and the Diamond? I guess it all depends upon how badly you want to know about something. And you can see in the chart that I had the concept of the Janet Periodic table long before I got into Wikipedia and learned about Charles Janet. Cheers.WFPM (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Good Friend Award
		With thanks for a cool and decent antidote to my self-inflicted thallium sulfate poisoning :). Bjenks (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nine-coordinate escapades

Hi Dirac66,

I've replied to your message on my talk page.

Best wishes, Ben (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Need your help (another science question)

Hey, Dirac66. Remember when you helped me with a few fluorine questions. I've got one more (I did try a Google search, got answers for some other I'd had, but don't yet get this one).

Nitrogen trifluoride has the valence shell population of 5.08 electrons on N (as compared to NCl₃'s 6.26). Why so? Okay, I always thought period-2 elements will try to keep in line with octet rule no matter what, and to have the value of 8? Ot isn't a neutral N atom supposed to have the valence shell population of 5, and thus if fluorines take the 2.92, doesn't it mean the bonds should be ionic in fact (2.92/3=0.97 electron a fluorine steals?) I even understand somehow why F holds the positive charge in BF and singlet NF molecules, but this... I feel misled. Could you clarify please?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. The octet rule strongly forbids period-2 atoms to have more than 8 valence electrons, but examples with less than 8 are well known for simple Lewis structures, for example BeF₂ (4), BF₃ (6) and CH₃ radical (7).

Fractional populations like 5.08 and 6.26 are theoretical estimates (not measured values) from various analyses of quantum chemical calculations, and the values obtained are very sensitive to the details of the quantum chemical method and the population analysis method. For any given method the trends are meaningful, so you can certainly conclude that NF₃ is more polar than NCl₃. But the absolute values are less meaningful, and some methods are known to overestimate ionic character, so if the method says that NF₃ is 97% ionic I would consider this as an overestimate, not to be taken very seriously. I define as ionic something which conducts electricity! Dirac66 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Carbonic acid Ka values

Hi Dirac66. Thanks for clearing up the issue of the different Ka values for H2CO3 on the carbon dioxide page. I've been wondering about this difference for several years, thanks for resolving it! I will correct the carbonic acid page, which is currently showing the 10^-7 figure Mmitchell10 (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad I was able to make it clearer. The acidity section of the carbonic acid page looks ok now, except that I added one missing word. Dirac66 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carbon dioxide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ppm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Gustave Le Bon

Hi! Have you read Le Bon's book "The evolution of matter"? It's about matter and electricity and doesn't mention Einstein, but does talk about electrons and show mass increasing with velocity. I'm trying to bring it to attention. Any ideas?WFPM (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article on Gustave LeBon which mentions this book, as well as a much longer French article. He doesn't seem to have been much of a physicist though. Dirac66 (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He's knowledgeable and has done of lot of experiments and thinks independently and I don't let his self agrandizement bother me. And he knows about electrons and about "intra-atomic energy" and how to quantize it. And he refers to and quotes a lot of other physicists of the era. So he must be up on the pre 20th century physics situation. And I like his dealing with atoms (and electrons) as real physical entities rather than as mathematical extractions. And he has concepts about the speed of light and of electrons.WFPM (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC) The french article shows his 1907 book and indicates his publications to be spread out in subject matter, kind of like Isaac Asimov.WFPM (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Have you read Asimov's Book "ATOM" (1992)?WFPM (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC) It's a summary book about nuclear physics and shows what an intelligent nonphysicist can do with the subject matter. And it was published shortly after his death in 1992.WFPM (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Of course Asimov wrote a multifaceted book about Physics in 1966.WFPM (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The first time I tried your Gustave Le Bon reference I got the french article and now it's in English! How come?WFPM (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Oh yes! I now see how I did it. Maybe he was just an old fashioned liberal, as Asimov claimed to be.WFPM (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I also found the French version of "The evolution of matter" in the Reference section of the French Biography. I also note that the next reference is an extended version of the same subject matter and wish I had it to read in English. My compliments to the French reference system.WFPM (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC) The reference only shows the first 78 pages of the book and differs considerably from my book's writings. Maybe the translator revised it.WFPM (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC) My English copy of the book (Charles Scribner (1907) is a discarded book from the Pittsburg Kansas public library that I bought at a used book store in Iola Kansas for 1 dollar. No I was wrong about the Evolution book because it's all there, it was the next one with only 79 pages. Except that the mass versus velocity chart is on page 177 in the French edition instead of page 190 in mine.WFPM (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bien, je suis content que vous avez trouvé ce livre qui vous permettra de pratiquer votre lecture en français. Je regrette que je n'ai rien à ajouter au sujet de Gustave LeBon. Dirac66 (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Bueno! y muchas gracias para la communication.WFPM (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying orbital hybridisation article

I do apologise for any inconvenience, but could you come help in suggestions in making the article easier to understand as per the latest post on the article's talk page? Thanks! --Officer781 (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion will take me a few days to digest, especially since I have not kept up to date with all the recent changes in this and related articles, even though I have commented on a few. For now I have started to reread the article as it is now and the recent additions to the talk page. Dirac66 (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)