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

Groups > sci.physics > #700407 > unrolled thread

Isomers of CO2, but first, bond dissociation energies, can you believe it CO is highest

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Isomers of CO2, but first, bond dissociation energies, can you believe it CO is highest Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 13:31 -0700
    Re: Isomers of CO2, but first, bond dissociation energies, can you believe it CO is highest Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 14:00 -0700
      B2 = 157kJ/mol proves AP structure is the true chemistry and Lewis structure is a fool's game Re: Isomers of CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 03:30 -0700
        Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-30 13:27 +0000
        Re: B2 = 157kJ/mol proves AP structure is the true chemistry and Lewis structure is a fool's game Re: Isomers of CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 14:38 -0700
          Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-30 22:19 +0000

#700407 — Isomers of CO2, but first, bond dissociation energies, can you believe it CO is highest

In New Chemistry, based on AP-Maxwell Equations and the fact real electron = muon, and proton = 840MeV and .5MeV particle was the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. So the point of bonding in Chemistry is all about manufacturing more monopoles at the greatest speed.

So, I need a table of Bond Dissociation Energy to tell me if I am getting the geometry correct. We throw out the Lewis structure, based on 8, altogether, as nutjob.

We have a 6 bond structure, based on 6 in the formation of toruses. A single unpaired muon with attendant proton is 1/2torus a paired muons with attendant protons is a full torus.

Now the bonding maybe inside a P orbital to form toruses inside the P orbital (thus atomic size is smaller going across the Periodic Table. Contrast to a bonding where the lone muon goes outside the atom such as NaCL in ionic bonding.

Covalent for the most part is orbital bonding. Ionic bonding is outside the atom.

source: chem.ucsb.edu

in kJ/mol

CO 1076
C2H2 962
N2  946
HCN  937
CN 770
H2OC  732
CO2 532
ON2 480
CH4 431
CH  337
O2  498
ON  630
H2  436
HD  439
D2  443

NaCL 410
NaF  481

This table, remarkably is proof that the bonding of Chemistry is based on 6, not the silly daffy Lewis structure.

My goal and task is to show CO2 has many isomers, and that animal-CO2 is far far different than fire-CO2 and that plants can only utilize the CO2 from animals, so it is important to save all wild animals, no more extinctions.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#700410

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.math
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:31:27 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Isomers of CO2, but first, bond dissociation energies, can you
 believe it CO is highest
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:31:27 +0000

Isomers of CO2, but first, bond dissociation energies, can you believe it CO is highest

In New Chemistry, based on AP-Maxwell Equations and the fact real electron = muon, and proton = 840MeV and .5MeV particle was the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. So the point of bonding in Chemistry is all about manufacturing more monopoles at the greatest speed. 

So, I need a table of Bond Dissociation Energy to tell me if I am getting the geometry correct. We throw out the Lewis structure, based on 8, altogether, as silly. Lewis structure was chemistry where they had no job, no task for subatomic particles. In New Chemistry, the muon is the bar magnet in Faraday law and the proton is a coil in Faraday Law, the neutron acts as a storage container, a capacitor for newly created monopoles. 

We have a 6 bond structure, based on 6 in the formation of toruses. A single unpaired muon with attendant proton is 1/2torus a paired muons with attendant protons is a full torus. 

Now the bonding maybe inside a P orbital to form toruses inside the P orbital (thus atomic size is smaller going across the Periodic Table. Contrast to a bonding where the lone muon goes outside the atom such as NaCL in ionic bonding. 

Covalent for the most part is orbital bonding. Ionic bonding is outside the atom. 

source: chem.ucsb.edu 

in kJ/mol 

CO 1076 
C2H2 962 
N2  946 
HCN  937 
CN 770 
H2OC  732 
CO2 532 
ON2 480 
CH4 431 
CH  337 
O2  498 
ON  630 
H2  436 
HD  439 
D2  443 

NaCL 410 
NaF  481 

This table, remarkably is proof that the bonding of Chemistry is based on 6, not the silly daffy Lewis structure. 

My goal and task is to show CO2 has many isomers, and that animal-CO2 is far far different than fire-CO2 and that plants can only utilize the CO2 from animals, so it is important to save all wild animals, no more extinctions. 


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#700445 — B2 = 157kJ/mol proves AP structure is the true chemistry and Lewis structure is a fool's game Re: Isomers of CO2

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 4:00:18 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.math
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 13:31:27 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: Isomers of CO2, but first, bond dissociation energies, can you
>  believe it CO is highest
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:31:27 +0000
> 
> Isomers of CO2, but first, bond dissociation energies, can you believe it CO is highest
> 
> In New Chemistry, based on AP-Maxwell Equations and the fact real electron = muon, and proton = 840MeV and .5MeV particle was the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. So the point of bonding in Chemistry is all about manufacturing more monopoles at the greatest speed. 
> 
> So, I need a table of Bond Dissociation Energy to tell me if I am getting the geometry correct. We throw out the Lewis structure, based on 8, altogether, as silly. Lewis structure was chemistry where they had no job, no task for subatomic particles. In New Chemistry, the muon is the bar magnet in Faraday law and the proton is a coil in Faraday Law, the neutron acts as a storage container, a capacitor for newly created monopoles. 
> 
> We have a 6 bond structure, based on 6 in the formation of toruses. A single unpaired muon with attendant proton is 1/2torus a paired muons with attendant protons is a full torus. 
> 
> Now the bonding maybe inside a P orbital to form toruses inside the P orbital (thus atomic size is smaller going across the Periodic Table. Contrast to a bonding where the lone muon goes outside the atom such as NaCL in ionic bonding. 
> 
> Covalent for the most part is orbital bonding. Ionic bonding is outside the atom. 
> 
> source: chem.ucsb.edu 
> 
> in kJ/mol 
> 

Alright, same thing goes for chemistry and physics, a project I am doing currently in math-- conversion of all functions and equations into Polynomials.

In Chemistry and Physics what we need is the conversion of all energy into eV, electron volts. No more of this crazy patch quilt of idiotic joules, calories and other greater-fool nonsense

Every every thing in science energy be electron-volts

1eV = 96.48kJ/mol

So convert all dissociation energies into eV, that way we can all think in one universal energy.


> CO 1076 
> C2H2 962 
> N2  946 
> HCN  937 
> CN 770 
> H2OC  732 
> CO2 532 
> ON2 480 
> CH4 431 
> CH  337 
> O2  498 
> ON  630 
> H2  436 
> HD  439 
> D2  443 
> 
> NaCL 410 
> NaF  481 
> 
> This table, remarkably is proof that the bonding of Chemistry is based on 6, not the silly daffy Lewis structure. 
> 

Now, I was wondering tonight if the Table of Dissociation Energies can prove whether Lewis Structure based on 8 number is true or whether AP structure based on 6 in Faraday Law for toruses is true. One has to be true, the other false.

Well, the Table does prove the AP structure.

Consider Boron, B2



> My goal and task is to show CO2 has many isomers, and that animal-CO2 is far far different than fire-CO2 and that plants can only utilize the CO2 from animals, so it is important to save all wild animals, no more extinctions. 


Consider boron, its dissociation energy is 157 kJ/mol

Now, the strongest energy of the same atom is N2 = 946, whereas B2 = 157.

If we multiply 157x6 = 942

946/942 is sigma error of 1.004, or .4% which means they are the same bonding mechanism

But, multiply 157 by Lewis's 8 is 1256, and no chemical bonding of the same atoms ever comes close to that. 

So, here is a proof that AP structure is true Chemistry, while Lewis structure was some fools game.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#700451 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

> (Sort of reminds me of my discovery that Real Electron = muon since 105 
> into 945 was exactly 9.) 

...
☐ ...and Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...
☑ ...he even still thinks 8.88 is "exactly" 9...
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#700500 — Re: B2 = 157kJ/mol proves AP structure is the true chemistry and Lewis structure is a fool's game Re: Isomers of CO2

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:31:35 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: true geometry of graphite and diamond //New Chemistry where AP
 structure based on 6, not Lewis with 8//isomers of CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 21:31:35 +0000

true geometry of graphite and diamond //New Chemistry where AP structure based on 6, not Lewis with 8//isomers of CO2

True geometry of graphite and diamond. 

I have gone far out of my way to build models, wood spheres with wood rods as bonds. 

Say, anyone remember a toy of wood rods with joiners shaped like ellipses with holes in to make wood figures? Seems like I recall in youth this toy erector set. 

But anyway, I need to construct the diamond and the graphite in 3rd D. 

Some more notes:: 

Bond dissociation energy 

C2 as in diamond is 602 kJ/mol 
H2O = 492 
OH = 425 
H2 = 432 

1eV = 96.48 kJ/mol 

Green light, of visible is about 2 eV 
Ultraviolet is 4 to 40 eV 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#700505 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>On Thursday, 30 August 2018
>Michael Moroney writes:
>4:26 PM (12 minutes ago)


>,,,,, "Total Failure" ,,,,,


>Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Richard Dudley of MIT--total failures says 
>Moroney --cannot correct their mistake ellipse is a cylinder section, 
>never a conic for the oval is the conic

Total Failure Plutonium, I asked you for a proof without the stalker lists
or your cubbyhole pet, yet you autistically posted just that.

Can't you at least provide a proof the ellipse is not a conic section?
Not today? Not ever??

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web