Current models of electron orbitals / bonding
Ross
organic chemistry, which I haven't studied formally since 1982 or
thereabouts.
I'm just curious about how different the A-Level view of orbitals and
bonding is from the "leading edge" models of how this all works. I'm
looking at energy levels, s-orbitals, p-orbitals, promotion of
electrons, hybridisation of orbitals, sigma-bonds, pi-bonds, and the
like. Is this close to the current best fit model, or is it a way out
of date model that's still used when teaching because it's a stepping
stone to more sophisticated models?
Y.Porat
------------------
just look and remember my new model
of the nuc and the Atom
1
alllaong it
matter is composed of
'chain of orbitals"
ie
orbitals of the same kind
**and even of different order of mass
and length
ARE ABLE TOOMBINE TO CHAIN OF ORBITALS'
you can see it in the abstsrct of my model
(all chemistry is full of such examples !!)
my innovative finding is
that is exists inside the nucleus as well !!!
(but in a smaller orbitals size of course )
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------------
ATB
Y.Porat
------------
Ross
> ------------------
> just look and remember my new model
> of the nuc and the Atom
>
> 1
> alllaong it
> matter is composed of
> 'chain of orbitals"
> ie
> orbitals of the same kind
> **and even of different order of mass
> and length
> ARE ABLE TOOMBINE TO CHAIN OF ORBITALS'
> you can see it in the abstsrct of my model
> (all chemistry is full of such examples !!)
> my innovative finding is
> that is exists inside the nucleus as well !!!
> (but in a smaller orbitals size of course )
Thank you. Can you please give me a reference for a publication
concerning this model in a scientific journal?
Aleph
b6db52...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat,
21 Nov 2009 01:15:43 -0800 (PST), Ross <rossc...@gmail.com> imparted
these words of wisdom:
Porat cant. He is a k00k with a unique view of things. You may be better
ignoring him, but at the end of the day it is down to you.
If he manages to find any references, I will eat my keyboard.
--
Aleph
This article was posted to USENET, please reply in that manner. Emails
to this account will be ignored.
Ross
> Porat cant. He is a k00k with a unique view of things. You may be better
> ignoring him, but at the end of the day it is down to you.
>
> If he manages to find any references, I will eat my keyboard.
The spelling, in particular, of the post did raise my suspicions a
certain degree. However, if references are produced, I'm amenable to
being convinced.
My original post was too early however, I've just gone through d and f
orbitals, and bonding and (mostly empty) non-bonding orbitals. I'm
sure I must have studied all this in 1982. I did get an "A" at the
time, but much of it seems new to me now.
Y.Porat
--------------
i refereed to your request of
hybridization of orbitals
it is new and unprecedented
if you want to remain a psychopath moron Like
Aleph
ask him to answer your questions (:-)
if he will really help you
i will eat my keyboard (:-)
that monkey is a Nazi gangster
that will never speak A SINGLE word of science
2
spelling mistakes mean nothing to day
it is jsut my laziness to use the spell checker it means nothing
about substance !!
3
if you like i can send you privately
the abstract of my book
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------------
Aleph
@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009
02:04:19 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:26 am, Aleph <Usenet....@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Porat cant. He is a k00k with a unique view of things. You may be better
> > > ignoring him, but at the end of the day it is down to you.
> >
> > > If he manages to find any references, I will eat my keyboard.
> >
> > The spelling, in particular, of the post did raise my suspicions a
> > certain degree. However, if references are produced, I'm amenable to
> > being convinced.
> >
> > My original post was too early however, I've just gone through d and f
> > orbitals, and bonding and (mostly empty) non-bonding orbitals. I'm
> > sure I must have studied all this in 1982. I did get an "A" at the
> > time, but much of it seems new to me now.
>
> --------------
> i refereed to your request of
> hybridization of orbitals
Face it, you were outed as a k00k after one post. It wont be long before
you accuse Ross of being me, Varney or any of the dozens of other people
who have realised your posts are gibberish.
> it is new and unprecedented
> if you want to remain a psychopath moron Like
> Aleph
What happened to Nazi Professional Crook Gangster? Use my full title
please Yogi Poontang.
> ask him to answer your questions (:-)
> if he will really help you
> i will eat my keyboard (:-)
Awwww, this is the Poontang we know and love. Welcome back. I will give
you a bit of leeway due to your massive senility, but remember, for
about a year I made the mistake of "discussing" science with you - sadly
every time I corrected your (almost countless) mistakes, all I got for
my trouble was post after post of abuse.
> that monkey is a Nazi gangster
> that will never speak A SINGLE word of science
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Crucially, it doesnt matter if I speak "a single word of science"
because you will still be *wrong*. You seem to miss this trivial fact,
but that is because you are incapable of learning.
> 2
> spelling mistakes mean nothing to day
> it is jsut my laziness to use the spell checker it means nothing
> about substance !!
OMG !!eleventyoneone!!, I need to twitter this... I [almost] agree with
the poohrat.
Spelling mistakes, in themselves, mean nothing. Yours, however, are
combined with glaring idiocy and crazy ideas. That gives them a new
dimension.
It is lazy to rely on a spell checker, rather than use the correct
spelling in the first place, but it is *monumentally* lazy to not even
bother with the spell checker.
This is your problem Poohrat, you dont actually think anything through
to its logical conclusion.
Scratch that, I used six words too many there.
> 3
> if you like i can send you privately
> the abstract of my book
Yeah, cos you arent a stalker trying to collect people's postal
addresses for some weird homo-erotic water sports fantasy, are you?
Y.Porat
> In article <7b2ee1f0-cf11-4746-b9b6-524071ee2738
> @j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009
---------------------
Bye psychopath crook
that changes
his identity ---each Sunday and Friday
that psycho homo is
posing that he is only a few months
on the net
if not
why hide his real psychopathic former - hired gangster moron
name ???
(:-)
Y.P
----------------------
Ross
> if you like i can send you privately
> the abstract of my book
Thanks. But, I'd like a reference to a paper published in a reputable
scientific journal, or I think I'll pass.
Aleph
@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009
02:19:15 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
>
> Bye psychopath crook
> that changes
> his identity ---each Sunday and Friday
Really? Who was I on Thursday then?
> that psycho homo is
Projection.
> posing that he is only a few months
> on the net
Incorrect.
> if not
Not.
> why hide his real psychopathic former - hired gangster moron
> name ???
Why do you hide yours? Your real name is Janus Bottomsmacker, but you
try to hide that.
Do you know what a false dichotomy is
Y.Porat
it was published as a site of mine
ion Google
Y.P
--------------------
Aleph
2b6228...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat,
21 Nov 2009 02:28:23 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted
these words of wisdom:
>
I think we can all see where this conversation is heading.
Androcles
"Ross" <rossc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b4d2f170-11bf-4ec5...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
As you've already been advised, Mr. Parrot is 100% kook.
Mind you, not all reputable scientific journals are kook free.
Robert Higgins
"Hybridization" of orbitals (Pauling-Slate theory) is still very
popular among organic chemists, but very misleading. (Not surprising,
since it was developed in the 1930's). The leading edge is molecular
orbital (M.O.) theory, particularly as it is easily wedded to
efficient computer algorithsm to give excellent quantitative results.
IN cases where Pauling-Slater and M.O. theory give different
predictions, M.O. theory is invariably correct.
Once you have a background in M.O. theory, look at some of the
computational models. The most popular now is density functional
theory (DFT), of which the B3LYP functional is the most widely used.
Hartree-Fock (HF) is historically important, but not very accurate.
Even more accurate than DFT are the so-called post-Hartree-Fock
methods such as configuration interaction (CI), coupled clusters (CC),
and Moller-Plesset perturbation theory (MP2 is OK, but not considered
post-HF. MP4 is effective but "expensive" - time and memory
consuming).
Y.Porat
wrote:
> "Ross" <rossclem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
-----------
Et tu Brutus ???!!!
do you want to open an acount with me as well ??
Y.P
-------------------
Y.P
------------
Y.Porat
------------------
at the first stage i was intending to tell you about my
chain of orbitals' findings
referring to you quetion about
fluoridation of orbitals
you will never find soemthing like that
in all those parroting theories
so just name up your mind to listen to me
that on that way that you are going
you are going to waist all your life
banging you head in a concrete wall
as all the other parrots
bacuse all of them are basing themselves on some wrong basic
assumptions
just remember what i told you just above !!
later i wanted to open your mind about
all those fantastic crooked
shells for heavy atoms
that tell you about the outer shells
but all those inner shells is a big
lie or fantasy .
based on the wrong assumption that
for a **heavy Atom* there is
one electron for one proton
tghere is no suchdirect simple connection
and that is what will brak your head
and waist your precious time and money
---------
if you will get stuck in the mud with things
like Higgs Bosons
3 quark theory
etc etc
dont forget to come back to me
ps
dont forget to consult about **the electron shells with
the disturbed crook Aleph that will never speak a single word of
science
Good luck
Y.P
-------------------
Y.Porat
wrote:
--------------------
the parrot Higgins
for got to tell you that
for really heavy Atoms
no computer program gives you a real solution
again because of wrong basic assumption
not because
as they mumble excuses:
because of '''lack of enough computer power '''
ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------
Aleph
@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009
03:38:42 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
> Et tu Brutus ???!!!
> do you want to open an acount with me as well ??
Do you do savings accounts or just checking accounts?
Hey, Porat, are you one of the authors of: Inhibition of amyloid fibril
formation by polyphenols: structural similarity and aromatic
interactions as a common inhibition mechanism. Chem Biol Drug Des 67
(1):27-37. (2006)
Or have you made up the name Y Porat?
Robert Higgins
We calculate the properties of molecules (catalysts, for example) with
heavy atoms all the time (using relativistic core pseudo-potentials).
The results are in excellent agreement with experimental results. Of
course, Poor Rat doesn't know anything about this. Ayone with
applicable education and experience is by Poor Rat's definition a
Nazi.
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> --------------------------
If want advice on calling people Nazis, asked Poor Rat - that is his
only expertise. That and rambling on and on in broken English about
his "non-standard" theories of chemical structure.
Aleph
@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat, 21 Nov 2009
03:52:35 -0800 (PST), Y.Porat <y.y....@gmail.com> imparted these words
of wisdom:
> dont forget to consult about **the electron shells with
> the disturbed crook Aleph that will never speak a single word of
> science
Interesting you picked on electron shells. Obviously you have been
reading my discussion with BURT on this topic.
Stop stalking me. I am not gay and do not find you attractive. Sorry. I
am not interested in you in that way. Get over it.
Michael Moroney
>spelling mistakes mean nothing to day
>it is jsut my laziness to use the spell checker it means nothing
>about substance !!
Nobody really cares too much about one or two mistakes in a quick reply
to a usenet post, esp. words easily misspelled in English, but when you
make so many misspellings that your posts are essentially unreadable,
plus you're too lazy to copy down a word in the post you're responding
to (right in front of your face! No excuse that you don't know how to
spell it!), that's a whole different story.
Plus if you don't take care to spell correctly when writing that "book"
that you are so proud of, that tells the reader you really don't care.
You should put much more effort into a book than a simple usenet post.
Uncle Al
>
> For reasons that are too complex to go into, I'm revising some basic
> organic chemistry, which I haven't studied formally since 1982 or
> thereabouts.
One word: "palladium"
> I'm just curious about how different the A-Level view of orbitals and
> bonding is from the "leading edge" models of how this all works. I'm
> looking at energy levels, s-orbitals, p-orbitals, promotion of
> electrons, hybridisation of orbitals, sigma-bonds, pi-bonds, and the
> like. Is this close to the current best fit model, or is it a way out
> of date model that's still used when teaching because it's a stepping
> stone to more sophisticated models?
You use LCAO and nothing but LCAO until the Woodward-Hoffmann rules.
The first person to say "MO" is structurally and synthetically
doomed. It matters not that LCAO is a black box filled with incorrect
assumptions.
LCAO says a triple bond is rotationally rigid. MO says a triple bond
has no rotation barrier at all. Propose an experiment to falsify
either prediction.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Robert Higgins
> Ross wrote:
>
> > For reasons that are too complex to go into, I'm revising some basic
> > organic chemistry, which I haven't studied formally since 1982 or
> > thereabouts.
>
> One word: "palladium"
>
> > I'm just curious about how different the A-Level view of orbitals and
> > bonding is from the "leading edge" models of how this all works. I'm
> > looking at energy levels, s-orbitals, p-orbitals, promotion of
> > electrons, hybridisation of orbitals, sigma-bonds, pi-bonds, and the
> > like. Is this close to the current best fit model, or is it a way out
> > of date model that's still used when teaching because it's a stepping
> > stone to more sophisticated models?
>
> You use LCAO and nothing but LCAO until the Woodward-Hoffmann rules.
> The first person to say "MO" is structurally and synthetically
> doomed. It matters not that LCAO is a black box filled with incorrect
> assumptions.
>
> LCAO says a triple bond is rotationally rigid. MO says a triple bond
> has no rotation barrier at all. Propose an experiment to falsify
> either prediction.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Al,
How do you distinguish LCAO from MO theory?
rabid_fan
The most important issues in organic chemistry are reactivity
and spectra. Both of these can be introduced via the LCAO
or Linear-Combination-of-Atomic-Orbitals approach.
Traditionally, hybridized orbitals have been used to rationalize
much of organic chemistry, but a lot is missing from the
hybridized approach, especially in the are of bonding.
Organic reactivity is better rationalized through
LCAO derived molecular orbitals (MO). Reactions occur
via HOMO/LUMO interactions, or Highest-Occupied-Molecular-
Orbital with Lowest-Occupied-Molecular-Orbital.
Quantum mechanical rules dictate that two atomic orbitals,
when combined according to symmetry rules, produce a bonding
and an anti-bonding orbital. These MO's can be used to
determine the appropriate HOMO and LUMO and hence can
easily predict reactivity. This picture is, in my opinion,
a great improvement over the traditional hybridization
approach. For one thing, hybridized oribitals don't allow
dissociation mechanisms to be understood, whereas the
LCAO-MO picture does. The population of an anti-bonding
obital on one species with electrons from another will
weaken the corresponding bonding orbital and thus allow
dissociation to occur.
The LCAO-MO approach is described in many advanced inorganic
textbooks. There is no need to look for scientific papers.
rabid_fan
>
> Organic reactivity is better rationalized through LCAO derived molecular
> orbitals (MO). Reactions occur via HOMO/LUMO interactions, or
> Highest-Occupied-Molecular- Orbital with
> Lowest-Occupied-Molecular-Orbital.
>
Oops! That should be LUMO = Lowest Unoccupied Molecular
Orbital.
Reactions occur via HOMO-LUMO interaction. This is sometimes
referred as Lewis acid and Lewis base pairing, but it is a
very common motif in organic reactivity.
IMO, the traditional hybridized orbital approach does not do
justice to HOMO/LUMO interactions. The LCAO approach is
superior.
rabid_fan
Let me just give a simple example of what I mean.
Consider the reaction of an alkene (double bond carbon)
with chlorine ion, in perhaps acid catalyzed solution.
This is a classic HOMO-LUMO interaction, with the chlorine
ion serving as a Lewis acid presenting a pair of electrons
to the alkene.
The HOMO, or highest occupied molecular orbital, is an outer
p-orbital on chlorine. Where is the LUMO, or lowest unoccupied
molecular orbital?
Using the hybridized orbital approach the LUMO is not apparent.
But with the LCAO method the LUMO is clear.
Symmetry relations between the two carbon atoms in the alkene
allow two carbon p-orbitals to combine to form a bonding and
an anti-bonding MO pair. The bonding MO contains the two
bonding electrons of the alkene (with the pi symmetry). The
anti-bonding orbital is empty and forms the LUMO.
As the chlorine ion contributes electron density to the
alkene anti-bonding orbital, the bonding orbital weakens
and collapses. An alkene structure no longer exists.
This event models the mechanism of the substitution reaction
in a way that the hybridized orbital approach cannot.
There is much more to this subject -- way more. Consult
any advanced inorganic textbook for details.
Darwin123
> In article <ee9ebf11-3059-46ca-8c9f-
> b6db528e4...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, sent to sci.physics on Sat,
> 21 Nov 2009 01:15:43 -0800 (PST), Ross <rossclem...@gmail.com> imparted
> these words of wisdom:
> > Thank you. Can you please give me a reference for a publication
> > concerning this model in a scientific journal?
>
> Porat cant. He is a k00k with a unique view of things. You may be better
> ignoring him, but at the end of the day it is down to you.
>
> If he manages to find any references, I will eat my keyboard.
And I my trackball.
Y.Porat
let me quote that again: (:-)
USING RELATIVISTIC CORE PSEUDO
(again PSEUDO... ) POTENTIALS)
(:-)
do i have ao add something on it
btw
idiot crook professor
what ahs that relativistic calculatins
goto do with electron shell existance !!
what is that big huge movement that there is there
for electrons that are legged to be
in thier** bonded situation !! **???
do you realize that an idiot crok yiou are ??!!
do you thing you can use your 'professor' name
to cheat peole
do you think that you can cheat every one forever
do you think that all resders here
are naive children ??
or may be you just quote
(without really understanding a bit about what you are cheating
about )!!
other idiot crooks that deal withit
BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU A LESS
IDIOT CROOK !!!
do you think that any pompous EMPTY words will impress anyone ??!!
shameless pig !!
btw
i have a sensitive musical ear!!
the term 'Poor Rat' reminds me
some other gangster inlong past who called me that way !!!
fo r me its another proof that
''Robert Higins "" (the professor of Lisa Dulitle ..
from 'Pygmalion' ...
did you got it ?? (:-) --
---that is only a fake name
he is only a few months on the net
**he is not a professor!!
he is a mad lier moron hired gangster !!
Y.Porat
-------------------------
Y.Porat
> Ross wrote:
>
> > For reasons that are too complex to go into, I'm revising some basic
> > organic chemistry, which I haven't studied formally since 1982 or
> > thereabouts.
>
> One word: "palladium"
>
> > I'm just curious about how different the A-Level view of orbitals and
> > bonding is from the "leading edge" models of how this all works. I'm
> > looking at energy levels, s-orbitals, p-orbitals, promotion of
> > electrons, hybridisation of orbitals, sigma-bonds, pi-bonds, and the
> > like. Is this close to the current best fit model, or is it a way out
> > of date model that's still used when teaching because it's a stepping
> > stone to more sophisticated models?
>
> You use LCAO and nothing but LCAO until the Woodward-Hoffmann rules.
> The first person to say "MO" is structurally and synthetically
> doomed. It matters not that LCAO is a black box filled with incorrect
> assumptions.
>
> LCAO says a triple bond is rotationally rigid. MO says a triple bond
> has no rotation barrier at all. Propose an experiment to falsify
> either prediction.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
-----------------
the thing that i agree with uncle
is his words
*** WRONG ASSUMPTIONS !!***
but Ross would like to undertand it
ONLY THROUGH HIS OWN LEGS
and only after breaking his head on concrete walls
as all the yougsters that cant learn
from the more experienced !!
he prefferes to waist his precious time
but that is still his prerogative ....
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Y.Porat
--------------
ok
now i would like to add something from my findings
once we dont talk about double or tripple bonds ----
---that 'hybridation of orbitals is
always
LINEAR CONNECTION OF ORBITALS
(one after the other - LINEARLY
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------