Dear Vankata!

Are you able to clarify your question please?

Best! Hans

Using laser technique you can find the number of particles which are inserted.

@Hans-G. Hildebrandt. Thank you for your reply. Actually I have data regarding percentage of particles of different radius that are inserted and I want to know how many particles are inserted ( no.of particles)

@Ridesh actually I have particle size distribution data and I need to calculate rather than conducting experiment. Thank you for your reply I'll try this technique if possible.

I can't help you answer that question, directly & exactly. But it was Dirac's unrealized dream to 'build all particles from the electron' (or electron mass).

Here is what I think is interesting:

The volume of each of 3 equal & touching medium-size spheres close-packed around a small centered sphere (i.e., generated volume ratio, 270.1 to 1) -- exactly or almost exactly equals the ratio of the mass of the average pion particle to the electron mass.

And that 1 large sphere circumscribing, touching, and packed around 4 equal medium-size spheres (tetrahedrally arrayed) and those around 1 small centered sphere (generating a volume ratio, Outer Big sphere to centered core sphere, 970.0 to 1) -- exactly or almost exactly equals the ratio of the mass of the average kaon particle to the electron mass.

And that 1 large sphere similarly around 12 equal medium-size spheres (with 'platonic' array) close-packed around 20 equal very small spheres (with 'platonic' array) around 1 centered small core sphere (generating a volume ratio, Outer Big sphere to small centered sphere, 133.65 to 1) -- exactly or almost exactly equals the ratio of the mass of the Higgs boson boson to a proton mass.

These equalities (or near equalities) and more may be found at http://vixra.org/, in: "Particle Mass Ratios that nearly Equal Basic Geometric Ratios", there. "viXra:1901.0299". Or at website "causeeffect.org".

Carl Littmann: If Dirac had used electron and positron he would been successful possibly.

Physics failed until today to solve the puzzle of particles: All the most instable particles which arise at collisions, nuclear fragmentation, particle interactions etc. can be used to reconstruct the structures of heavier particles and atomic nuclei. The structures of the microcosmos are characterised by regularity and a high degree of order.

See the picture of the structures of especially stable atomic nuclei.

Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei

@Hans-G. Hildebrandt. H-G Hildebrandt's illustration & graph as to how various basic nuclear (sphere) patterns contribute to 'peaks' of binding energy vs. number of nucleons, as I see it, seems to me very meritorious and creative. Thanks for the link and ref. to your paper (The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei) covering that and topics even more extensive.

Your sketch of how 20 equal spheres can be arranged compactly to form a large tetrahedron -- is, I think, valuable, constructive, and creative; and, in particular, noting a relationship between that and 10-Ne-20, and the 'blip' there, regarding 'binding energy'.

The only comments I might also add are these:

That those 20 spheres could also be grouped into a perfect 'dodecahedron' pattern, but it would be 'hollow' inside, without the exact volume for 1 additional equal sized sphere to fit or serve exactly perfectly in the center 'core'.

Also, that somewhat surprisingly, 2-He-3, although rare, is stable, even though it has twice as many protons as neutrons. And even 1-H-3 (tritium), although not stable, has a surprisingly (many years) long 'half-life'. But, I think that all that, especially 2-He-3, is better appreciated by realizing that 3 nucleons (or 3 'field energy spheres') can be imagined grouped together to form a 'perfect equilateral triangle'! (Pauling also thought the 'triangle' and 'tetrahedron' basic shapes 'concept' were of some importance in modeling nuclei. But I doubt if he developed that, or any fancier shapes vs. nuclei, as much as you.)

Interesting, also, I think, is that Sears & Zemansky sometimes started more basically with protons and the proton atom with its electron (the latter with net 'zero charge', like the neutron). And thus, more basically and accurately used the 'atomic mass value' of the Hydrogen atom, instead of the neutral Neutron particle -- when calculating 'binding energies'. By using the mass of the neutral hydrogen atom, instead of the 'neutron particle', in calculating 'binding energies'; the resulting empirical stability of 2-He-3 vs. relative instability of 1-H-3, becomes sensible, instead of somewhat surprising or mysterious, in my opinion.

Carl Littmann, (( [email protected] ))

website: www.causeeffect.net

The picture and the paper above is a result of analysis of a high amount of data of particles and their interactions.

Note: It was never any 'quark' visible by nuclear fragmentation or at the 'great' experiment at LHC. This special particles existing only in theories.

Carl Littmann: As I know was the positron unknown to Dirac. Based on calculations he assumed the proton as dual counterpart of the electron.

Dear Venkata Naga Rohith Tinnanuru

Which type of particles you are working with?

You mentioned:

"Actually I have data regarding percentage of particles of different radius that are inserted and I want to know how many particles are inserted ( no.of particles)"

For many cases, If you know moles of ingredients used in the manufacture of your particles and mean particle size distribution, there are mathematical equations which can be applied to find out particle number in certain volume of your sample.

Awaiting your response for further clarification.

M. R. Mozafari, Venkata Naga Rohith Tinnanuru

I'm lousy at using the Internet, but if I succeeded in adding the audio-video link below, you might try to 'play' it by clicking it, if it happens to work. ((It deals with relative ratio of volumes (and radii) of the major particles or their energy fields.) Or click the other 'file with article' and look at its sketches.))

Hi Carl,

Carl Littmann

Thanks for your kind message and the audio / video links along with the word document describing particle mass ratio related to their geometry.

Much appreciated

Dear Carl Littmann

Hans-G. Hildebrandt

Venkata Naga Rohith Tinnanuru

Do you know how the number 30.89602 (the average number of metal atoms per metallic particle of gold - gold nanoparticles) is reached in the equation below:

N = π ρ D3 / 6M = 30.89602 D3

ρ is the density for FCC gold (19.3 g/cm3) and M stands for atomic weight of gold (197 g/mol) .

Refs.

Liu, X., Atwater, M., Wang, J., & Huo, Q. (2007). Extinction coefficient of gold nanoparticles with different sizes and different capping ligands. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 58(1), 3-7.

AND:

Rajakumar, G., Gomathi, T., Abdul Rahuman, A., Thiruvengadam, M., Mydhili, G., Kim, S. H., & Chung, I. M. (2016). Biosynthesis and biomedical applications of gold nanoparticles using Eclipta prostrata leaf extract. Applied Sciences, 6(8), 222.

Above references do not provide enough explanation.

M. R. Mozafari Hi M. R. Mozafari

Thanks for your comments relating to gold Nano-particles, Calculations, gold atoms, conglomerates, colloids, capping ligands, etc.

Seems like a fascinating subject, however a subject I know very little about. Maybe I will start by reading and studying the below references:

sustainable-nano.com/2016/07/28/how-many-atoms-are-in-a-nanoparticle/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150410083516.htm

But with my very limited chemical background and other limitations, new knowledge will be grasp by me only pretty slowly.

Carl L.

Particle size distribution can be measured by sieve analysis, laser light scattering or optical microscopy.

In dry sieve analysis, powders/granules are placed on top of a stack of 5 to 6 sieves with different mesh sizes. The stack is vibrated and the particles collect on top of the sieves. The data is usually represented in terms of (percentage retained on the sieve that under- or over-size) vs. (screen-opening orifice).