Similar predicted atomic structures using Smart Model Structures for Periodic
Table of Elements, that has no electron orbitals as QM and the Standard Model
uses.

http://members.aol.com/Smart1234/SmartModelTIN.gif

Single Crystal of fci-Ho-Mg-Zn

http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/fci-Ho-Mg-Zn.jpg

( You can see the similarities in predicted Smart Model type structures for
elements and the real atomic image...)

As you add protons and neutrons to connections to these type structures you
get the correct Periodic Table of Elements. The electron orbital model of
Periodic Table of Elements is INCORRECT. It appears to work only because of a
math trick with numbers. Reality shows that the Smart Model is the most correct
atomic and sub-atomic model that uses intelligent internal and external
structures.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

Similar predicted atomic structures using Smart Model Structures for Periodic
Table of Elements, that has no electron orbitals as QM and the Standard Model
uses.

http://members.aol.com/Smart1234/SmartModelTIN.gif

Single Crystal of fci-Ho-Mg-Zn

http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/fci-Ho-Mg-Zn.jpg

( You can see the similarities in predicted Smart Model type structures for
elements and the real atomic image...)

As you add protons and neutrons to connections to these type structures
you
get the correct Periodic Table of Elements. The electron orbital model of
Periodic Table of Elements is INCORRECT. It appears to work only because of a
math trick with numbers. Reality shows that the Smart Model is the most
correct
atomic and sub-atomic model that uses intelligent internal and external
structures.



I would like to add The QM Model and Standard Model to the Crank list with
QM Model being the most cranky.



Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company

wrote
on 12 Sep 2003 14:37:37 GMT
:
Similar predicted atomic structures using Smart Model Structures for Periodic
Table of Elements, that has no electron orbitals as QM and the Standard Model
uses.

http://members.aol.com/Smart1234/SmartModelTIN.gif

Single Crystal of fci-Ho-Mg-Zn

http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/fci-Ho-Mg-Zn.jpg

( You can see the similarities in predicted Smart Model type structures for
elements and the real atomic image...)

As you add protons and neutrons to connections to these type structures
you
get the correct Periodic Table of Elements. The electron orbital model of
Periodic Table of Elements is INCORRECT. It appears to work only because of a
math trick with numbers. Reality shows that the Smart Model is the most
correct
atomic and sub-atomic model that uses intelligent internal and external
structures.



I would like to add The QM Model and Standard Model to
the Crank list with QM Model being the most cranky.

You are free to suggest such, of course. But it reminds me
of an old religious joke:

A poor person prays at the altar of a pious church.

"Oh, God, Almighty, I humbly beseech thee."

To his atonishment, he gets a reply...

"I AM HERE."

"Oh God, a billion years is but a minute of time to
your august perceptions, and a billion dollars is but
a small penny to your vast fortunes. You are mighty indeed!"

"YES....?"

"So, God, can I have but a penny?"

"IN A MINUTE..."

:-)

(The moral is: just because you ask, doesn't mean you'll receive
in a timely manner.)

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company

wrote
on 12 Sep 2003 14:37:37 GMT
:
Similar predicted atomic structures using Smart Model Structures for
Periodic
Table of Elements, that has no electron orbitals as QM and the Standard
Model
uses.

http://members.aol.com/Smart1234/SmartModelTIN.gif

Single Crystal of fci-Ho-Mg-Zn

http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/fci-Ho-Mg-Zn.jpg

( You can see the similarities in predicted Smart Model type structures for
elements and the real atomic image...)

As you add protons and neutrons to connections to these type structures
you
get the correct Periodic Table of Elements. The electron orbital model of
Periodic Table of Elements is INCORRECT. It appears to work only because of
a
math trick with numbers. Reality shows that the Smart Model is the most
correct
atomic and sub-atomic model that uses intelligent internal and external
structures.



I would like to add The QM Model and Standard Model to
the Crank list with QM Model being the most cranky.

You are free to suggest such, of course. But it reminds me
of an old religious joke:


For crying out loud. This is what Zn is suppose to look like using the QM
Periodic Table of Elements.

* *


* * * * * * *

* * * * * O * * * * * * * * *
* * * ** * * * ** **

*** * * * * *
*

* = electrons
O = nucleus

Is this what you see with your own eyes? No.



Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company

wrote
on 13 Sep 2003 19:07:21 GMT
:
In sci.physics, S. Enterprize Company

wrote
on 12 Sep 2003 14:37:37 GMT
:
Similar predicted atomic structures using Smart Model Structures for
Periodic
Table of Elements, that has no electron orbitals as QM and the Standard
Model
uses.

http://members.aol.com/Smart1234/SmartModelTIN.gif

Single Crystal of fci-Ho-Mg-Zn

http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/fci-Ho-Mg-Zn.jpg

( You can see the similarities in predicted Smart Model type structures for
elements and the real atomic image...)

As you add protons and neutrons to connections to these type structures
you
get the correct Periodic Table of Elements. The electron orbital model of
Periodic Table of Elements is INCORRECT. It appears to work only because of
a
math trick with numbers. Reality shows that the Smart Model is the most
correct
atomic and sub-atomic model that uses intelligent internal and external
structures.



I would like to add The QM Model and Standard Model to
the Crank list with QM Model being the most cranky.

You are free to suggest such, of course. But it reminds me
of an old religious joke:


For crying out loud. This is what Zn is suppose to look like using the QM
Periodic Table of Elements.

* *


* * * * * * *

* * * * * O * * * * * * * * *
* * * ** * * * ** **

*** * * * * *
*

* = electrons
O = nucleus

Is this what you see with your own eyes? No.

That got very messed up, dude. Next time use a fixed-space font
like Courier. :-) Also, your scale is (by necessity) rather off.

I'm not entirely sure what a Zn atom "looks like". No doubt you've seen

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...xt/Zn/key.html

which among other things shows a schematic shell diagram of Zn.
This is, however, not what the atom looks like. (One knows what
a very large number of atoms look like, of course; it's mostly
a silvery-white metal.)

Or you can go to

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...t/Zn/econ.html

(Electronic Configuration of Zinc)

which suggests [Ar] 3d10 4s2, or, written out in full,

1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 3d10 4s2.

Most likely, were we able to "see" a Zn atom, it would
look a bit like a strangely shaped and symmetric cloud.
(Since "seeing" involves photons, and a 500 nm blue-green
photon is far too big to display the salient features of
an atom whose radius might be about .266 nm, there are a
few issues here. Might as well ascertain the salient features
of a model plane by bombarding it with very large cannonballs. :-) )

A related link

http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/orbitron/

might give one a sense of the flavor of the probability distributions
(cloud densities) of the orbitals, although it doesn't specifically
answer the question for Zn.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.