User talk:Drova

Welcome!

Hello, Drova, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Chemistry WP:WikiProject Chemistry[edit]

Perhaps you might find likeminded individuals here? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be here !

Thanks for your welcoming note, Rifleman 82. As you have noticed, I am new to Wikipedia. I hope that I am doing it right. Drova (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drova (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I'm an EE and have my own problems with orbital electron theories, But I want to have a reasonable concept of the atomic nucleus and hopefully of the whole atom. And so I built a set of real physical nuclear models based on the most reasonable set of ideas I could find, Which included a table format equal to the left-step or Janet table. See Talk:Nuclear model. And I reported it but they wont let me in to the Nuclear Model article and imply that i'm doing original research. But A model is a model is a model to coin a phrase. And maybe we can get wikiers to pay more attention to the advantages of the Janet model and even to the implications as to nuclear stability of my real models. And I can see why Copernicus and Galileo and even Newton had their problems.WFPMWFPM (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left Step Periodic Table is fine, but it is only intermediate step towards the correct table, because it does not reflect quantum number 'n', that represents electronic shells, directly. Therefore, rows of the LSPT do not represent electronic shells, instead each row represent n+l. However, if you shift spdf blocks by amount of 'l', as in ADOMAH PT you will get the final product, where quantum number 'n' can be seen directly. After this shift is done, table can be used to calculate electronic configuration and relationship between 'n' and 'l' becomes clear. I agree with you in regard to some Wikiers. What is obvious shouldn't be rejected just because it is new or in different format, instead it should be embraced. In accordance with Webster's Dictionary "Encyclopedia is a book, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject". If Wikipedia is intended to be a good encyclopedia, it should cover as many aspects of any particular subject as possible. There is a good name for those who are quick to reject anything that is not main stream without giving it a proper consideration: "Scientific Ortodoxy". I have a proposition, what if you do your Nucler Model in ADOMAH format, instead of LSPT? Lets be bold! Drova (talk)

Please remember that I'm an EE who can remember not knowing and trying to understand Ohms law. But now im old and for some stupid reason I want to know what is the recipe for the matter involved and what is going on physically in the center of the Whirlpool Galaxy M51 as indicated by the new Hubble and other pictures. And what most impresses me is that whatever is going on, electrical and magnetic processes have practically nothing to do with it other than result in the emission of radiation, which I assume is surplus to the process. But we've got electrons, which must be needed in the process, (to do the radiating?] and beyond that gravity rules. So I cant help you with worrying about spdf orbitals because I dont know they exist and cant see the need for them. Sorry if I sound like a thought editor, but every man to his own folly. So the left step or Janet tables are simple and agree with my models and the models can tell you more about the atomic structure and that's as far as I've got. Regards WFPMWFPM (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Aufbau principle article[edit]

Hi Drova! I just posted a question on the Aufbau principle article's talk page, and since it concerns some of your contributions, I just thought I'd let you know in case you had any insight. Thanks! Rundquist (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert rule[edit]

Please be aware of the Thre revert rule. You are close to violating this policy by reverting the same edits (removal of questionable links) from multiple articles -- violation of this policy often leads to user accounts being blocked for a given period of time. User A1 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

With regard to your recent edit and the policy on personal attacks,

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Killing Vector (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to attack anybody. I was simply surprised that some one, who appears to have neither background nor interest in Chemistry or Atomic Physics would comment on the link in Aufbau Principle discussion[[1]], especially using such degrading label as "pseudoscience". It was my spontaneous reaction after I looked at the ctritic's previous contributions. What could possibly be his motivation to engage in such discussion so fiercely?Drova (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, many people edit a wide range of articles. But, if rather than attacking, you'd asked about the user's qualifications, you would have found that he is — in fact — a physicist. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electron Configuration[edit]

I don't want to waste other editors times with my musing I've learned what I wanted and I'm going to look at the Atkins' book to see if it has anything useful to add. Good point about treating chemicals in pure forms. I actually think discussions of standard states as they relate to Hess's law are handled well. I think Schrödinger equation is taught well. I think the limits of Hartree-Fock models are handled poorly. Running the computations becomes to black box for almost everyone other than computational chemists. I think even some of the people presenting such calculation don't understand the models their are using. There are many absurd calculations floating around. There is on calculation published in one of the promiant chemical physics journals from the APS where someone calculated a Bucky balls doped with boron then added 12 Scandium atoms and intended the 5 side faces of the Bucky Ball to act as Cp ligand. They then filled the scandium atoms up with classical and non-classical hydrides. The total system proposed to be a hydrogen storage medium and calculated to have very good thermodynamic storage properties. It is absurdity, reviewed by people who didn't know enough chemistry. They don't know the way Sc reacts with ligands and isn't known for stable polyhydrides, don't know Bucky balls act like an olefin not Cp but is still a piss power Lewis Base. They don't realize doping a bucky ball with boron is going to make it an even worse Lewis base. None the less I think the Hartree-Fock models needs to be introduced on the undergraduate level, probably in PChem.

I think the comparison to Mendeleev is off base, I never came close to resisting the idea of elements. For students to understand valence electrons I think it would be enough for them to know the information imparted in Lewis dot structures. Skip filling the orbitals and go straight to hybridization. Then push them straight into some form of MO theory and valence bond theory.

I think its important to remember idealized also means approximate. And testing students on specific approximations doesn't seem right. I find it strange that you see the transition metal as something significant to this system, since those are the configurations I find most offensive. I've taught them as they as the appear in standard texts and tests since that is what students need to know for standardized tests. If there weren't these social constraints I would simply say electron configurations fail to describe transition metal electron configurations. I would not discuss the matter until there was an opportunity to cover d electron counts and d electron spin states. I'm an experimentalist who loves real data. Like I said I've learned a lot in the related discussion. Thanks for your time.--OMCV (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also find transition metal configurations offensive, but I found that all such deviations occur within same period, if Janet's LSPT is used. It is simply shifting differentiating electron along the current period or, in some instances moving to the previous period (lesser n+l), within current n+l value. Such deviations never reach next n+l level. That is why I feel that LSPT form and it's newer version, that is known as ADOMAH PT are more useful than the standard PT when it comes to explaining electron configurations. Sorry for the mendeleev remark.Drova (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Increased Z numbers Table[edit]

The main thing wrong with the ADOMAH PT table is the trouble you're going to have when you start posting the next 18 unit series of elements, because the rationale is not apparent and invites controversy. If you have a structural concept that agrees logically with an 18 unit expansion concept, you wont have nearly as much trouble.WFPM (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no problem with ADOMAH and it can be expanded to any number of elements in 3D, as a tetrahedral stack of spheres, and in 2D, similar to Janet's left step PT. It is limitless. If elements with atomic number higher than 120 are ever discovered, new cascade would have to be started 18 units up above Ac, just as in Left Step Table, new row would have to be started, 18 units to the left of Ac, thus making the table 50 units long (or tall, in case of ADOMAH). This would become new, g-block. In 3D, the new layer of spheres would have to be started with 9 red spheres at the base, followed by 8 green..., etc. Thus, ADOMAH PT provides the most logical structural concept that is the basis for the Periodic System. If no elements heavier than 120 are discovered, than ADOMAH and LSPT would remain the same forever. There is no difference in this regard between LSPT and ADOMAH PT.Drova (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but I don't see it as evident in the format of the table or in the tetrahedral structural in the picture. Whereas in my Talk:Nuclear model structure, I can see that the next series will be a wrap around 18 element additional layer of elements on top of what already exists. And I'm not carping, just observing.WFPM (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC) I think the problem is that you don't have any geometrical form that shows any rationale for a 4 unit increase in each additional series and I do. From looking at the tetrahedral figure in the picture, how do I figure out that the G block is going to consist in 18 elements? Note that my models actually have a octahedral structure, but only involve 4 sided additions in construction.WFPM (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple. In order to expand tetrahedron further, you have to start with new row of 9 spheres. Each sphere represents pair of elements. Therefore, 9x2=18. Images at this site do not make it obvious because they are presented to illustrate Aufbau process mimicking its well known 2D image. But if you bought red and green spheres and tried to assemble the stack on your table the way I explained in my article on that web site (starting with red sphere and two green and one more red on top and three red at the base, followed by two green and one red, etc.) you would be able to see that after stack with 8 spheres at its base is complete, next step would be horizontal row of 9 red spheres, representing 18 g-elements. There is nothing more natural than this. You need to experiment with this, like you did with your pyramids. Perhaps if the tetrahedron is turned in such way that s-block is almost vertical, you would be able to see it better. Your image is not as explanatory as it might seem to you either. Drova (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it better if you used cylinders so I could keep the spin situation in mind. And I'll try some more. And my model's configuration is octahedral not pyramidal. And each addition is like an additional "wrap around" layer on the top like in the pyramid. So whatever the size of the square is the number of additions needed for that layer. And whatever is the length of the wrap is the number of the first series of the addition. So I'm on your side in being in favor of real physical models as opposed to drawings on paper.WFPM (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC) And oh yes, have you tried building them with magnets?[reply]

I never thought of using cylinders. Magnets might not work due to the directionality of the magnetic field. All interior spheres have 12 "kissing" spheres in 3D. As far as I know, magnets do not accomodate that. But using spheres of two colors provide explanation why every other alkaline earth metal has atomic number coinsiding with every other tetrahedral number and those alkaline earths that are in between have atomic numbers that are arithmetic means of the tetrahedral numbers. Afterall, triangular and tetrahedral numbers, that occupy 3rd and 4th diagonals of Pascal Triangle respectively, are about kissing circles in 2D and kissing spheres in 3D. I am not sure how cylinders would fit in this picture. If you do, feel free to develop it.Drova (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a problem about the use of spheres to show nucleons in an atom without showing their direction of rotation. Because they are always described as having an up or down spin and then positioned where that would hardly be possible. So I like cylindrical nucleons better, plus I can build my models with the Neodymium models and they tell me how things have to go together. And I understand the structural package unit achieved by the hexagonal closest packing concept and think that even that might be done with magnetized spherical magnets, but some of the proposed atomic configurations are ridiculous with respect to their individual magnetic field interelationship properties and/or spin relationship properties and nobody seems to worry about that. And of course all kinds of physical models involve points of contact. So what! I can't help it if their concept of activity requires that they don't come in contact with each other. Maxwell talks about this in the "Atom" article in tha 9th EB. I don't demand no contact in my models. Just that the contacting particles have spin compatibility. And when they're completed they will rotate together like intermeshing gears do. And aren't the alkaline earths in the group 2A below Beryllium? In My models and the Janet table they're the last of the series, which involves the addition of an alpha particle to the top of the structure. And I don't get involved in chemistry, which usually winds up leading me nowhere.WFPM (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC) But I have Dr Pauling's "General Chemistry" and admire his grasp of the details of chemistry and physics. And I take a 500 mg pill of vitamin C every morning just because he recommends it.WFPM (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you might feel that some atomic configurations based on your system and intuition, are ridiculous, but it is hard to argue with spectroscopic observations.Drova (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But take a look in Pauling's General Chemistry and see how easy it would have been to have allowed the 2S series to have stood on its own (on page 128) as a complete series, and then have allowed the next series to have started with the 2P series as per the Janet periodic table. And on page 139 the delta energy level separation between the 2S--2P versus that between the 2p-3S levels is another argument in favor of that concept. And it's like that throughout the table. So the Standard Table has a problem, as you well know.WFPM (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Please excuse my corrections, but the argument remains the same.WFPM (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC) See Charles Janet and Talk:Charles Janet.WFPM (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Periodic table. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Subtle personal attacks are much worse than blatant ones. Normally, I would give a level 1 warning to start out, but because you did it subtly, I am giving a level 2 warning. String Theory¹¹ 03:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the warning. I always try to avoid personal attacks, this one slipped under my radar. Drova (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Life of muhamad[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Life of muhamad, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jinkinson talk to me 02:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]