Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:14 pm

Thallium 
Atomic Number: 81

232. Why is Mercury Liquid?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf

?

Gold doesn't have this problem either, as we see by studying the diagram above once more. Gold has that problem top and two sides, but it solves that by bonding at the other three places. Gold can bond to Gold at any of the other three places, since the purple disks are filled 3/6. Those three places create perfect plugs for Gold-Gold.

So we have discovered the secret of Mercury. It is the 4/6 plug all round that causes the weak Hg-Hg bond, and the liquid state.
As further proof of this, we may look at Thallium and Lead. Thallium is very soft, but it isn't liquid. It has created a bond stronger than Mercury at one of the six holes. It does this by five-filling two holes, taking one hole down to three. Thallium now has 3/6 in one of the outer holes, which allows for a bond with itself. Lead does the same thing, but twice, so that it has 4 holes five-filled, and two holes three-filled. This makes Lead more stable than Thallium, and so more abundant.

You will say, “That should make Lead very conductive according to your rules, but it isn't. You have a potential difference of 2/5, which should be considerable.” I can best answer that by showing the diagram for Lead. Green is five protons.


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:29 am; edited 2 times in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:17 pm

Lead 
Atomic Number: 82

232. Why is MERCURY LIQUID?
http://milesmathis.com/mercliq.pdf




So we have discovered the secret of Mercury. It is the 4/6 plug all round that causes the weak Hg-Hg bond, and the liquid state.

As further proof of this, we may look at Thallium and Lead. Thallium is very soft, but it isn't liquid. It has created a bond stronger than Mercury at one of the six holes. It does this by five-filling two holes, taking one hole down to three. Thallium now has 3/6 in one of the outer holes, which allows for a bond with itself. Lead does the same thing, but twice, so that it has 4 holes five-filled, and two holes three-filled. This makes Lead more stable than Thallium, and so more abundant.

You will say, “That should make Lead very conductive according to your rules, but it isn't. You have a potential difference of 2/5, which should be considerable.” I can best answer that by showing the diagram for Lead. Green is five protons.

See, no potential difference from pole to pole, therefore low conductivity.


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 8:40 pm; edited 2 times in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:19 pm

Bismuth 
Atomic Number: 83

?

?


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:21 pm

Polonium 
Atomic Number: 84

240b. PERIOD FOUR of the Periodic Table
http://milesmathis.com/per4.pdf

?

That confirms that we have to be very careful how we channel charge through those inner holes. The inner holes are very special in the nuclear architecture, and, as we have seen, groups 16 and 17 are a bit tricky. We already knew that from looking at Period 6, where Polonium and Astatine break down altogether.

In closing, I need to tie up one weak spot. I have said that those inner holes needed to be filled in most cases, to prevent the charge field from dashing through there and causing dissolution. But if protons are working like fans, pushing charge through, how does that prevent dissolution? If charge going through is dangerous, pushing charge through even faster won't help, will it?


Astatine
Atomic Number: 85

230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf

?

The radioactivity of Polonium and Astatine are explained in precisely the same way, and all the elements above Radon also meet similar problems.
If Radon is five protons in the outer holes, this explains why Radon is a gas. See my analysis of Mercury for more on this, but it comes down to way Radon must bond with itself. All the outer holes are 5/6 full, so when 5/6 meets 5/6, only one hole is open for five prongs. This means no bonding with itself, which means Radon must be a monatomic gas (which it is).


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:28 am; edited 2 times in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:38 pm

Radon 
Atomic Number: 86

230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT
http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf



You see how Radon has built itself a cozy little fourth level, balanced in color all round. That balance all round makes the mainstream think it has some similarity to a noble gas, which is why they go to all that trouble re-arranging Periods to get Radon into that group. The problem is, to achieve that balance,  Radon had to put only one proton in each of the two holes below. With 30 protons in the outer level, that isn't enough to maintain cohesion. The centrifugal force from the carousel spin can't be balanced by the gravity from interior mass, since there simply isn't enough. You will say, “So why not put some of those outer protons in the inner holes?” We can try that, but you will see that this first configuration is actually the most stable of all possible configurations at this number. Again, we have to look at the way those inner holes fill. Say we send two more protons to the inner level. To maintain balance in the carousel level, we have to take those protons from the top and bottom holes. But this means we are just rearranging protons already on the axis: it won't help our inner/outer imbalance, since those protons on top and bottom are already “inner.” Yes, they are further away from center, but since they are right on the axis, they still count as inner. So this won't help us. So let us put two more down there. If we take these two from the axis, we still have the same problem, so let us take all four from the carousel, leaving five top and bottom.


We now have six below, three in each hole. The problem with this configuration is that while it seems to give us a bigger version of Iron, Iron is small enough to maintain stability while Radon isn't. Why? Because we now have five protons pushing charge in on the axis but only four in the carousel positions pulling charge out. Iron can solve that problem by conducting the extra charge straight through the axis and out the other side, giving us the magnetism we measure. Well, if we built Radon this way it would try to do that, too. But it wouldn't work because while Iron has neutrons in the inner holes, keeping cross charge out of the axis, Radon now has six protons pulling charge through the axis. This through charge would interfere with the conduction of charge, preventing Radon from conducting its extra charge out the other end. You would get a charge build up in the axis alphas, which would cause dissolution from the inside out. Adding more protons down there would only increase this problem. Because of its size, Radon has to pull charge through the inner holes. It can't leave them open because the ambient field would get in and cause problems. It can't stopper them with neutrons, because the surrounding field is simply too strong. The powerful charge field coming in from the sides has to be channeled through. But as we have seen, Radon can't create stability with protons in the holes, either. At this atomic number, there is simply no solution, which is why Radon is not stable.


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:27 am; edited 3 times in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:40 pm

Francium 
Atomic Number: 87

?

?


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:42 pm

Radium 
Atomic Number: 88

?

?

Related:

Radioactivity from Coal Combustion

The main sources of radiation released from coal combustion include not only uranium and thorium but also daughter products produced by the decay of these isotopes, such as radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and lead. Although not a decay product, naturally occurring radioactive potassium-40 is also a significant contributor.

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:44 pm

Actinium 
Atomic Number: 89

?

?


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:46 pm

Thorium 
Atomic Number: 90

169. What Causes the Earth's Heat?  Answer: CHARGE
http://milesmathis.com/core.pdf

?

Now let's check those half-lifes. U235—700 million years. U238—4.4 billion years. K40 1.2 billion years. Thorium232—14 billion years. Only the Thorium would persist at anything like original levels. About 1/5 would be gone. But half the U238 would be gone by now, 12/13ths of the K40 would be gone, and 85/86th of the U235 would be gone. So the current theorists must be telling us there was twice as much U238 in the past, 13 times as much K40, and 86 times as much U235.

And, logically, if 80% of current heat is caused by radioactivity, and if there was so much more radioactive material in the past, the Earth must have had 20 to 50 times more heat from radioactivity in the past. Let's use the lower number, to be generous to current theory. The Earth in the past would have had 20 times more heat from radioactivity, and 10 times more residual heat. That's a total of 17 times more heat than it has now. That's a heat content approaching 2 x 1032 Joules and an internal temperature of something like 180,000F. How can dust particles accreting at 1,500F create temperatures of 180,000F?

Remember, according to the SNDM model, the protostar disk in which the Earth formed is made up mainly from Hydrogen and Helium. But now we are being told that enough radioactive material is available to create 1031 Joules of energy 4.5 billion years after the fact in a small rocky planet. By that reasoning, the Sun must have had copious amounts of radioactive isotopes from the beginning as well. Since the Sun has a mass of 333,000 Earths, we must assume it had that much more radioactivity from the beginning. So let's do the math. If the early Earth can create 2 x 1032 Joules from its radioactive isotopes, the early Sun should be able to create 6.67 x 1037 Joules. If we add the gravitational heat of the Sun, using the same method as they use on the Earth, that gives us 1.86 x 1039 Joules (the Sun has 28 times as much gravity). Does anyone believe the Sun has that much heat due to original radioactive isotopes? No. If we could create that much heat from radioactive isotopes, the Sun could fuse as a sidelight.

Related:

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Better Nuclear Fuels; Better Biomass to Fuels Approach

Conventional nuclear power plants are able to burn only a small fraction of nuclear fuel. They are then forced to store the lion's share of this expensive fuel indefinitely, as "nuclear waste." Far from being waste, most of this unused material is incredibly valuable. How could nuclear reactors burn fuel more efficiently? Two candidates suggest themselves: thorium and depleted uranium, burned in safe, advanced breeder reactors.

Los Alamos National Labs has devised a new approach for refining thorium for nuclear fuel, which shaves almost 99.5% of the cost of processing -- reducing the cost from $5000 a kg to only $30 per kg. This LANL breakthrough is just one of several which will be necessary, before thorium can become the dominant nuclear fuel.

http://alfin2300.blogspot.com/search/label/thorium


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:26 am; edited 2 times in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:49 pm

Protactinium 
Atomic Number: 91

?

?


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:51 pm

Uranium 
Atomic Number: 92

239. Uranium TetraFluoride
http://milesmathis.com/uf4.pdf





Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Dec 06, 2014 3:26 am; edited 2 times in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:54 pm

Neptunium 
Atomic Number: 93

?

?


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:55 pm

Plutonium 
Atomic Number: 94

?

?


Last edited by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Mathis' Chemistry Graphics

Post by Cr6 on Sat Nov 29, 2014 3:57 pm

Americium 
Atomic Number: 95

?

?

All other elements following:
96-120+

230. HOW THE ELEMENTS ARE BUILT


?

We see more problems with current theory if we leave the nucleus and look at the electron shells. We are told that noble gases are super stable or non-reactive because they have the outer shell filled, but that isn't true with any noble gas above Neon. Argon, for instance, has 8 electrons in an outer shell that can contain 18. Why is the 3d sub-level wide open? According to current theory, Argon should be number 28, not 18. That, or Nickel should be the noble gas. Even the Madelung rule doesn't help us. It tells us that 4s will be filled before 3d, but doesn't tell us why, or what that has to do with noble gases or stability. Same with Krypton, which has an outer shell that can contain 32 electrons; instead, we find only 8 again. According to current theory, Krypton should be number 60, not 36. Or Neodymium should be the noble gas. According to the periodic Table, noble gases are actually filled up to the p-level, using the Madelung rule. But why? What is the mechanics of the Madelung rule and the p-level? And why do Copper and Chromium break it? Xenon, Radon, and Ununoctium also break the electron “rules”, and they admit this of the last. They tell us 114 acts like a noble gas, not 118, but don't tell us why. We are told it is because of Relativity, but that is the saddest kind of dodge. They have these rules, but the rules don't fit the Table.

The octet rule is also just a rule of thumb which is broken often. It is about as accurate as Bode's law. The fact that we even still talk about these rules proves that the real rules aren't known. Elements aren't created by rough rules of thumb, they are created by unwavering math and mechanics, as I will now show.

The reason this hasn't been solved is that the historical and current diagrams of the atom are still so naïve. Up to this day, the atom is still drawn with a nucleus like a bag of marbles, with no shape beyond a general roundness. We have Keggin structures for heteropoly acids, we have buckyballs, we have complex molecular diagrams, but we have no diagrams of the nucleus?

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 655
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum