Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #687697 > unrolled thread

Review history Lewis diagram and why CO2 has three isotopes

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Review history Lewis diagram and why CO2 has three isotopes Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 13:05 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "Failure" Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-30 03:26 +0000

#687697 — Review history Lewis diagram and why CO2 has three isotopes

Groups
Google+
Gmail
Web
more
↰ sci.physics
	2//39,40,41-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Some history on the erroneous Lewis structure of 1916, using 8 when it should use 6
12:01 PMme

Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 17:44:16 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: 39-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// theory of atoms, theory of 
 chemistry, theory of paramagnetism, now back to CO2 has three or more isomers 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 00:44:16 +0000 

39-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// theory of atoms, theory of chemistry, theory of paramagnetism, now back to CO2 has three or more isomers. 

Theory of Atoms-- they are the only substance that exists in the Cosmos, implying automatically that the whole is an atom and specifically 231Pu Atom Totality 

Theory of Chemistry-- atoms have subatomic particles which are perpetually performing Faraday's law, and the real electron = muon = 105 MeV and is the bar magnet of Faraday's law, the real proton = 840 MeV and is the coil of Faraday's law along with neutrons at 945 MeV. The Faraday law grows every atom that exists to be a higher atomic element. And the purpose of molecules and compounds and mixtures is to accelerate Faraday's law on atoms to create more magnetic monopoles and grow the atom faster. 

Theory of paramagnetism and diamagnetism-- well the shape of protons is to form a torus and the muon electrons as bar magnets thrust through the torus made from protons and neutrons to create the magnetic monopoles which come in sizes of 2 eV up to .5MeV and are stored in neutrons until they reach 945 MeV and make that atom be 1 atomic number higher. Since it is protons that form the coil in Faraday's law as a torus, you need to pair two protons to form a complete torus, so if you have an atom or molecule with odd number of protons, left over alone protons then you have paramagnetism, or, as in the case of O2 or CO2, you have pseudo-orbitals and these are paramagnetism also. If all orbitals are filled in atoms and molecules of protons, then you have diamagnetism. And diamagnetic molecules such as N2, O3, CO, have filled orbitals and no pseudo-orbitals. 

Theory of CO2 -- back to CO2 because I so much want this to have 3 or more isomers where animal CO2 is far different from fire derived CO2 such as burning fossil fuels or any fire derived CO2. I want this because we then are forced to save all large wild animals for plants can only use the animal CO2. The valence muons of CO2 are 2 + 4+4 = 10, and when 6 muons are used up to fill 2P, that leaves behind 4 muons. And those 4 muons either form a pseudo 1S, a pseudo 2S, or a pseudo 3S, either pseudo 1S with 2S, or pseudo 1S with 3S, or pseudo 2S with 3S to use up the 4 extra muons. So, CO2 has at least three different isomers, and I am guessing that Animal CO2 is that of least amount of energy to form CO2. 


N2-- diamagnetic 

O2-- paramagnetic 

CO2-- paramagnetic 

O3-- diamagnetic 

CO-- diamagnetic 

C4 graphite -- diamagnetic anomaly 

C5 diamond-- diamagnetic anomaly 

B2-- paramagnetic 

H2O diamagnetic 

H2 diamagnetic 

D2 diamagnetic 

CIF diamagnetic & paramagnetic anomaly 

So, can I trust whether all of the above were experimentally derived or is it some web hack using his/her own rule. 

Alright, good, I think I have a tentative solution to the above, to finding out whether CO2 has three or more isotopes and to find out, which of the S orbitals are used in those three isotopes of S, the 1S, 2S, 3S to make animal CO2 versus the fire CO2 derived. 

I believe the solution hinges on Graphite and Diamond molecules. The graphite has 4 carbons in bonding while diamond has 5 carbon in bonding. That means graphite is 2+2+2+2 valence muons leaving 2 extra muons left over, whilst diamond is 2+2+2+2+2 leaving 4 extra muons after forming a filled 2P. I shall not argue that both are diamagnetic. 

Now, O2 is also 2 left over but is paramagnetic, so I must reconcile that, and reconcile I do, by noting that the 2 left-over muons in O2 are different from the 2 left-over muons in C4, because the 2 in O2 are just 2 protons with 2 muons while the 2 left-over in C4 are actually an entire C atom of 6 protons and 6 muons and their neutrons. Same thing goes for Diamond C5, in that the CO2 of its 10 valence muons, 4 left-over muons are 4 protons with attendant 4 muons, but in diamond the 4 left-over are fully 2 carbon atoms each with 6 protons and 6 muons. 

So, when you have extra muon valence electrons forming pseudo-orbitals, those turn out to be paramagnetic molecules if the pseudo-orbitals are S orbitals, not a pseudo 2P orbital as in O3. And when the extra muon valence electrons are entire whole atoms as in graphite and diamond, they remain diamagnetic molecules. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: 40-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the largest major bonding 
 mistake of Old Chemistry graphite and diamond, they were confused over 
 allotropes and isomers 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 18:00:08 +0000 


40-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the largest major bonding mistake of Old Chemistry graphite and diamond, they were confused over allotropes and isomers 

Alright, I said I needed to go slow, real slow because I now found the major major error of Old Chemistry, the carbon bond. 

In Old Chemistry they had a term of allotrope for oxygen that went like this. 


3O2 --> 2O3 endothermic 

They named that as allotrope-- different geometries of the same element in the same energy state, such as gases. 

But Old Chemistry was totally wrong on carbon for they should have had 

C3 + C3 --> graphite --> C3+C3 --> diamond endothermic 

In my chart above, posted much earlier I write an anomaly after carbon diamagnetic, and anomaly because the true bond of graphite is a C3 filling the 2P in hexagonal sheets, there is no C bond to C on the z-axis, but carbon diamond is also C3. Geometrically the graphite is planar hexagonal 

       C 
C           C 

C           C 
       C 

Planar in the sense that 1/2 of those carbons fill a 2P 

        C 
C             C 

And the other half fill a pseudo 2P orbital and thus are diamagnetic 

There is only a weak bond between planes of graphite but graphite formula is not what Old Chemistry thought of as C4 where each carbon is bonded to 3 other carbons, but rather C3. Now in spectroscopy I suppose that is where Old Chemistry makes that hideous mistake of interpretation. 

Then the diamond C formula is also C3 only using the third dimension of x,y,z of the faces of a cube. Graphite uses hex, diamond uses cube faces, both use 6, for 2P orbital is all about 6, and the Old Chemistry probably thought that 8-- with the erroneous Lewis structure based on 8 applied. So the Lewis structure totally misled chemists of Old Chemistry, and fouled up badly with carbon.

Imagine a cube and stack cubes and each face of a cube is a C atom muon. There are 6 faces to a cube. When you flatten a cube to just 2 dimensions you make that cube a hexagonal array of 2 C3. 

When you add enormous pressure and heat to graphite of its 2C3 hex pattern you turn graphite into diamond by turning the 2nd D, into a cube of C3 into x,y,z 3rd D where each muon is a cube face. 

Both graphite and diamond are C3, for graphite is a 2C3 with filled 2P and with a pseudo 2P orbitals. For diamond, you still have the C3 but each electron=muon in the C3 is a face of a cube. A cube has 6 faces, so a diamond is C3 the same as graphite, only the diamond has no pseudo 2P, but rather has a pseudo 1S as each face joins to the face of another C3 cube and those are covalent bonds. 

So in a sense graphite is the bonding of a 2P orbital alongside another 2P orbital of six carbon atoms in a plane. So graphite is the bonding of one 2P orbital with a second 2P orbital, while diamond is the bonding of three carbon atoms to form a 2P, and each of those 6 muons as 6 faces is covalently bonded to a exterior C3. Graphite is a bonded C3 to one other C3, while diamond is a C3 and all 6 muons are once again covalently bonded to a separate different C3 structure. 

Summary of graphite and diamond-- both are C3 with filled 2P but then in the plane for graphite, it joins with another C3 molecule to form a pseudo 2P orbital. Diamond is three dimensional, whereas graphite is two dimensional hex. Diamond is a cube of its six muons, each forming a face of a cube and being covalently bonded to a adjoined cube face. 

This is why graphite and diamond are diamagnetic-- totally paradoxical in Old Chemistry. If Old Chemistry had been true, then graphite and diamond would have been paramagnetic, just as O2 and CO2 are paramagnetic. 

This is big big changes to all of Chemistry. 

AP 

On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:18:46 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
Now we can fix this table to what it should be, instead of the erroneous carbon bonding of graphite and diamond 

N2-- diamagnetic 

O2-- paramagnetic 

CO2-- paramagnetic 

O3-- diamagnetic 

CO-- diamagnetic 

C4 graphite -- diamagnetic anomaly but anomaly goes away as we see graphite is also C3 

C5 diamond-- diamagnetic anomaly but anomaly goes away as we see diamond is C3 

B2-- paramagnetic 

H2O diamagnetic 

H2 diamagnetic 

D2 diamagnetic 

CIF diamagnetic & paramagnetic anomaly 

When carbon bonding is seen as C3 where you have valence muons of 2+2+2 filling the 2P orbital you of course have diamagnetic just as N2 or CO or H2O or even as O3 with its 2P filled and its 2P pseudo-orbital filled. 

But as for carbon, perhaps the mistaken and silly Lewis structure based on the number 8 is to blame for why silly minded chemists thought graphite was C4 and diamond was C5, each carbon atom bonded to four surrounding C atoms in diamond and for graphite each carbon atom bonded to three surrounding C atoms. Perhaps spectroscopy or crystallography gave these chemist fools some support in their error. 

For the bonding of graphite is never that of C4 = 2+2+2+2 valence muons. And never is the bonding of diamond that of C5 = 2+2+2+2+2. Both graphite and diamond were a bonding of C3 = 2+2+2 and what distinguishes graphite from diamond is that the C3 remains planar in graphite but 3rd Dimension in diamond. The fools of Old Chemistry should have realized a century ago or two centuries ago, that to achieve diamagnetism for graphite or diamond both had to be C3, never a C4 or C5 bonding. 

AP 

41-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Some history on the erroneous Lewis structure of 1916, using 8 when it should use 6 

On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 1:46:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
I do not know how much of a role the silly Lewis structure based on the number 8 played on the silly idea that graphite was 4 bonds per molecule C4 and then diamond was 5 bonds as C5, when in truth both graphite and diamond are C3 bonds. 

I mean, well, surely Lewis realized the 2P orbital was all about 6 not 8. So why did he fall into that trap of 8. 

And then when students are taught chemistry the diamagnetism, only C3 makes sense never C4 or C5. It is as if Old Chemistry was Twilight Zone Chemistry. 

AP 
On Tuesday, May 29, 2018 at 2:57:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 

So i need to dig into chemistry history why this silly fascination for 8 in Lewis structure when P orbital filling is all centered on 6 not 8. 

Mind you my discovery that real electron is 105 MeV and real proton 840MeV is a octet rule as a proton is composed of 8 muons. But why would Lewis have picked 8 when he knew 2P orbital was 6. He probably thought the 2S was involved, and one has to wonder how poorly understood was the Aufbau if at all. 

But here is Wikipedia talking about it:: 
The bonding in carbon dioxide (CO2): all atoms are surrounded by 8 electrons, fulfilling the octet rule. 
The octet rule is a chemical rule of thumb that reflects observation that atoms of main-group elements tend to combine in such a way that each atom has eight electrons in its valence shell, giving it the same electron configuration as a noble gas. The rule is especially applicable to carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and the halogens, but also to metals such as sodium or magnesium. 

The valence electrons can be counted using a Lewis electron dot diagram as shown at the right for carbon dioxide. The electrons shared by the two atoms in a covalent bond are counted twice, once for each atom. In carbon dioxide each oxygen shares four electrons with the central carbon, two (shown in red) from the oxygen itself and two (shown in black) from the carbon. All four of these electrons are counted in both the carbon octet and the oxygen octet. 

—- end quoting Wikipedia —- 

So one has to wonder what octet rule of thumb that reflects observations was in early 1900s. 

Then later on in the century of 1900s, more exacting energy levels made a larger separation of the S orbital versus P orbital in same row the further one goes in Periodic Table. 

AP 

So we have a date on the Lewis dot diagram and the use of 8 as the year 1916 with Gilbert Lewis book The Atom and the Molecule. 

We have to focus especially on this sentence above written in Wikipedia: 

"The octet rule is a chemical rule of thumb that reflects observation that atoms of main-group elements tend to combine in such a way that each atom has eight electrons in its valence shell." 

We have to ask how much of this Aufbau and understanding of the atom was prevalent by 1916, for Lewis to have chosen the number 8 rather than the number 6 to base valence theory upon? 

--- quoting my earlier post --- 

CHEM ONE, 2nd ed., Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 327, Figure 16-3 Schematic Energy-Level Diagram for a Many-Electron Atom 

So let me try to duplicate what that Figure 16-3 looks like 

                                      5d                   4f 
                                   - - - - -             - - - - - - - 
   __6s 
              _ _ _5p 
                                     4d 
                                  - - - - - 
   __5s 
              _ _ _4p 
                                     3d 
                                  - - - - - 
   __4s 
              _ _ _3p 


   __3s 

  
              _ _ _2p 


 __2s 





 __1s 

y-axis low to high energy 

x-axis  L = 0    1,    2,      3 

Now the reason I went ahead and drew the above of the Aufbau, is that it is a 2dimensional diagram of what I believe is a 3 dimensional torus. I believe the shape of each atom is a torus, where the highest energy level is the largest overall torus and all others are nested inside one another. So for example neon is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 meaning that the 2p^6 is the biggest and outer torus of neon, having the 1s nested inside the 2s toruses, and these two toruses nested inside the 2p where the 2p is the coil of neon and the bar-magnet of neon is the two nested toruses of 1s and 2s, going around the bigger torus as a bar magnet and creating new magnetic monopoles. 
--- end quoting my earlier post --- 

I am going to make a guess, although, I could read Lewis's book. I am going to guess that by 1916, none of the knowledge as written in CHEM ONE above was known to Lewis. And so, Lewis thought (my opinion) that the 2S and 2P is the basis of the octet rule, not knowing that S and P orbitals were distinct. 

Not knowing by 1916, that in Chemistry, it is far far more difficult to break apart N2 than to break apart O2 and so the Lewis structure rule for Chemistry should not have been based on 8 but rather based on 6 since the valence of dinitrogen is 3+3 =6 the strongest bond, yet Lewis chose dioxygen of 4+4=8 to base the covalent bond and the octet rule. Safe to say that chemistry of Lewis diagram is based on oxygen as the centerfold of chemistry, when in truth, nitrogen was the centerfold and its 3+3 =6 the center of a Rule. The rule should have been a Hex Rule, not a octet rule. But I am guessing that the Chemistry knowledge of 1916 had no idea of the Figure shown in CHEM ONE, for chemistry was still too primitive by 1916. 

But that is no excuse for when during the later part of the 1900s we had very precise measurements of diamagnetism and paramagnetism, that no-one had a good enough logical mind in chemistry to realize that diamagnetism of carbon graphite and carbon diamond, contradicted the octet rule, while the paramagnetism of O2 and CO2 supported the Hex Rule. With the Hex Rule, carbon is diamagnetic and O2 and CO2 are paramagnetic. 

Now, with that straightened out, I can begin to assemble the true geometry structure of CO2, showing its -- at minimum 3 isomers. I have not yet resolved whether fire CO2 involves the 3S orbital, and whether animal CO2 involves 1S orbital, questioning when 2S orbital is involved. For this, I need to go and see if the O2 molecule of its valence muons of 4+4=8 and 2 muons left over, whether those 2 muons can be either one of these three pseudo-orbitals of 1S, 2S and 3S. Has dioxygen ever been witnessed to have three distinct isotopes? And thus the ozone, O3 would be such that it has a pseudo 2P orbital, making it diamagnetic, not paramagnetic that O2 and CO2 are. So chemistry and chemists from 1916 to 2018 were really poor poor in Logical thinking and seemed to not mind the fact that they are living in a ocean of contradictions with their octet rule and Lewis diagrams. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#687764 — Re: Archimedes "Failure" Plutonium flunked physics lifelong-generation test

Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:39:13 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
>> 
>> Use it carefully.
>> 
>> earle
>> *

>Michael Moroney 	wrote:
>1:04 PM (8 hours ago)

>>Moroney, do you stalk 

>Once again, Failure
Failure Plutonium attacks me, too stoopid to leave me alone...

Not very bright, are you.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web