--- Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > Hence 2830 eV would correspond to a p value of about 14 not 104
...right you are - in Mills accounting. I was using the Hartree energy in the way that Arie de Geuss proposes, but that is mixing of metaphors, so to speak, and is my mistake ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartree > BTW this capture notion is very similar to that > proposed by Ed Storms. Which is a good sign - as it is entirely possible that Mills got most of it right, but not all of it; and in fact, there could be differing M.O.s depending on the magnitude of the initial shrinkage... (i.e. whether it is step-wise or extreme) I still wish that the K-shell value for chlorine worked for both the Mills and Hartree view... too bad... although you have proposed a more Millsean M.O. that could work for chlorine in a situation where monatomic H was available. Jones
