Talk:Moseley's law

parameter reduction explanation inaccuracy

see my edit to the reasoning regarding to the atomic number reductonPjbeierle (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Moseley's formula gives zero for Z = 1 Hydrogen so I don't give examples on hydrogenic atoms.--Starace Aniello (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the rework of this article Starace! I finally understand Moseley's law and its shortcomings.

Could somebody please add some references to established literature about the limitations of Moseley's law and how to compute more precisely the x-ray spectra? I am having difficulty finding such. Obviously, if Moseley's law was perfect, NIST would use it instead of a more complicated approach.

So far, I've checked "Atomic Physics" by Born, "Landmark Experiments in Twentieth Century Physics" by Trigg, "General Chemistry" by Pauling, "The Development of Modern Chemistry" by Ihde, "General Chemistry" by Whitten 7th edition, and "A Short History of Chemistry" by Partington. Most of them do not address the imprecision of the proportionality of the square root of the frequency to Z, and only reproduce the deceptive graphs of a small range of elements, and don't appear to provide more precise means of computing the spectra. Partington hints that the theory was extended to heavier elements by Irving Langmuir in 1919. Those articles are old. I haven't checked that lead, but will keep searching. Also haven't yet read Whitaker's paper as referenced in the article nor an account of it from a book yet. It may be of help.

References

--TreeOfKnowledge (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

To TreeOfKnowledge (talk) Thank you for your collaboration. Thanks and good work!--Starace Aniello (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

recent massive changes, self promotional tone and unreliable references, article needs a serious review

TreeOfKnowledge Starace Aniello

I hope you'd both agree, that this article, after being totally re-written, by the same author of the now primary reference, that is a non-peer reviewed paper. Necessitates this article needing an expert to review the changes/revert all of them.

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

proton count

Proton count.. it is very good, exact term to explain heart of Moseleys discovery to us, but it is also somehow misleading. Because noboby knows about protons in Moseleys time. And this part of article must talk about history. --Nimelik (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC) In Moseley, Henry G. J. (1914). "The High-Frequency Spectra of the Elements. Part II". Philosophical Magazine. 6. 27: 712, at https://archive.org/details/londonedinburg6271914lond/page/712/mode/2up we can read "electrical units in the nucleus" so protons were known, but protons were named "electrical units in the nucleus"--Starace Aniello (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

A correction to this page. Derivation of Moseley's law doesn't exist as it is experimental law.

In this wiki page, derivation of Moseley's law is given but it is derivation from bohr's model of atom where energy of emitted photon is calculated via the equation 13.6Z^2(1/z1^2-1/z2^2) So my point is that bohr's model of atom only works for hydrogen like single electronic systems and it can be derived by mathematics but calculating electronic energy, frequency, radius of rotation becomes exceptionally complex when we see multi-electronic systems. So I would recommend editors to remove misleading derivation or add a detail on how Moseley's experimental observation is in line with bohr's finding. It would help people understand concepts much deeper and better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.98.123.104 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we also add what next article the reader should be pointed to for seeing the exceptionally complex work in multi-electronic systems? 69.204.216.157 (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Chemistry

Moseley law 103.255.6.78 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)