Talk:Periodic table (extended)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details. This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Incorrect Electron Configuration 2 Color 3 Elements above 120 4 Poll 5 Discovered 6 Is this table needed

[edit] Incorrect Electron Configuration

This extended periodic table is not correct. Lanthanum, for example, has one d electron, and zero f electrons, and lutetium has 14 f electrons. The correct extended periodic table has the f elements inserted after one family (vertical column) of the d elements, that is, the d block is split by the f elements, and similarly the g block inserts one family into the f elements, again splitting the f elements. The first element with a g orbital in its ground state is unbitrium, element 123. This table is way off. -Steiner

I think you'll find most theorists would disagree. Electron configurations are not static: electrons skip around through the levels all the time - at any instant, a sample of an element will present a "boltzmann distribution" of populated configurations. (What you are thinking of are ground state configurations for isolated gas phase atoms: I don't believe we find much monatomic gaseous lutecium in everyday life, do you? ;-) Moreover, the "orbital approximation", where we regard each electron as a discrete entity with its own personalized set of quantum numbers, is just that: an approximation. It is a good one for light elements, but increasingly breaks down as nuclear charge Z increases, with increased spin-orbit coupling. By the f-block (and particularly the actinides), spin-orbit coupling is the dominant factor. The very concept of a "g-block" is moot, as no-one has yet synthesized these elements, and their electron configurations can at present only be guessed at - but we would strongly suspect the orbital approximation would be in tatters by that stage.--feline1 10:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think I'm not alone. In the current configuration, the claim is that lanthanum has an f electron in its ground state and no d electron, when in fact the electron configuration of lanthanum has one d electron, and no f electrons. This is not speculation. Additionally, based on the current table's assumptions, ytterbium and nobelium have 14 f electrons, which they do not--they have 13. Furthermore if the concept of a "g-block" is a moot point, then why is it included in this periodic table? I encourage you to look up the work of Darleane Hoffman at Lawrence Berkeley. -Steiner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.165.118.5 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

To follow your point here is an image of how it should look.

This is the accurate representation of this as you will see in most short periodic tables Lanthanum and Actinium are shown in the same group as Scandium and Yttrium and 14 elements across f block ends with Lutetium, for lanthanides, and Lawrencium, for actinides, not Ytterbium and Nobelium as show on this page. I'll check and site my sources so that an official edit can be made to this effect. -->Bensrob 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• jeries.rihani.com
• Example Extended Periodic Table
• Example Electron Configuration

I checked the site which is noted as the source for this page and every version of the extended periodic table, on that site, has it layed out as the picture i created and posted before. This is also shown in the electron configurations to go with each proposed table. The links are to one propesed design on the site, but there are others to compair this too. --> Bensrob 03:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Also if you check the wiki pages for Lanthanum and Actinium it has there electron configuration as ending with

Eg.

For Lanthanum:-1S²2S²2P⁶3S²3P⁶3D¹⁰4S²4P⁶4D¹⁰5S²5P⁶5D¹6S²

For Cerium:-1S²2S²2P⁶3S²3P⁶3D¹⁰4S²4P⁶4D¹⁰4F¹5S²5P⁶5D¹6S²

AS shown here there is no electrons in the 4F¹ sub-shell. If ive messed any of that up please feel free to correct it. ---> Bensrob 04:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color

What colour should i coulour the blcoks in? for Periodic table/extended - fonzy

I'VE BEEN WAITING AGES FOR A REPLY ON THIS. - FONZY

It's fine the way it is. Geez, get a grip. --Ed Poor

- at the moment some one them are colour s i did nto chaneg, and teh otehrs are nto tehblock colours tehy are the colours of the groups. - FONZY

Well, it looks fine to me. --Ed Poor

I really don't know what to color the blocks fonzy - just choose something that is not the same as any of the colors used for the chemical series. --mav 21:59 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

The current colours in the key all look rather similar to me; perhaps it would be nice to have them cover a bigger range. But thinking about it, I'm not sure that colouring by block is particularly useful; I find that the eye divides the table naturally into blocks as it is. I think a colour scheme by (different types of) metal/nonmetal/metalloid as we currently semi-have is actually more useful. --Bth

- the reason it has to be devided by blocks is that no-one knows what the G-block elements are (even where the start, only theories at the moment). - fonzy

[edit] Elements above 120

• WHERE DID ELEMENT 118 go??

I've unlinked all the entries above 120 because, as several places have said, these are only temporary names. Until they've been discovered, we really don't have much to say and after they've been discovered, they'll be renamed - likely for the discoverer. Any article on the new element should be created at that new name. Creating a bunch of red links now will just mean a lot more maintenance later.

There are, of course, exceptions like 118 which was thought to be discovered and then retracted. For reference, here is the list of names and symbols that I touched. Rossami 23:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not really. The time between the discovery of an element and it's naming can be decades! For example, it took Rutherfordium THIRTY THREE years to be named. That's why it's important to maintain links to the temporary names (and they can't be named after their discovers because you aren't allowed to be alive and have an element named after you... though if you wait 33 years...). Since they will be used (if the element is discovered), and not renamed for some time, I think we should replace the links. Ctachme 16:30, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've replaced the link to 126, because it has a theoretical interest. I suggest that the simplest way to approach this is to leave the table as is, and only link in elements which someone has cause to write an article on. Stirling Newberry 19:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• 121 unbiunium Ubu
• 122 unbibium Ubb
• 123 unbitrium Ubt
• 124 unbiquadium Ubq
• 125 unbipentium Ubp
• 126 unbihexium Ubh
• 127 unbiseptium Ubs
• 128 unbioctium Ubo
• 129 unbiennium Ube
• 130 untrinilium Utn
• 131 untriunium Utu
• 132 untribium Utb
• 133 untritrium Utt
• 134 untriquadium Utq
• 135 untripentium Utp
• 136 untrihexium Uth
• 137 untriseptium Uts
• 138 untrioctium Uto
• 139 untriennium Ute
• 140 unquadnilium Uqn
• 141 unquadunium Uqu
• 142 unquadbium Uqb
• 143 unquadtrium Uqt
• 144 unquadquadium Uqq
• 145 unquadpentium Uqp
• 146 unquadhexium Uqh
• 147 unquadseptium Uqs
• 148 unquadoctium Uqo
• 149 unquadennium Uqe
• 150 unpentnilium Upn
• 151 unpentunium Upu
• 152 unpentbium Upb
• 153 unpenttrium Upt
• 154 unpentquadium Upq
• 155 unpentpentium Upp
• 156 unpenthexium Uph
• 157 unpentseptium Ups
• 158 unpentoctium Upo
• 159 unpentennium Upe
• 160 unhexnilium Uhn
• 161 unhexunium Uhu
• 162 unhexbium Uhb
• 163 unhextrium Uht
• 164 unhexquadium Uhq
• 165 unhexpentium Uhp
• 166 unhexhexium Uhh
• 167 unhexseptium Uhs
• 168 unhexoctium Uho
• 169 unhexennium Uhe
• 170 unseptnilium Usn
• 171 unseptunium Usu
• 172 unseptbium Usb
• 173 unsepttrium Ust
• 174 unseptquadium Usq
• 175 unseptpentium Usp
• 176 unsepthexium Ush
• 177 unseptseptium Uss
• 178 unseptoctium Uso
• 179 unseptennium, Use
• 180 unoctnilium Uon
• 181 unoctunium Uou
• 182 unoctbium Uob
• 183 unocttrium Uot
• 184 unoctquadium Uoq
• 185 unoctpentium Uop
• 186 unocthexium Uoh
• 187 unoctseptium Uos
• 188 unoctoctium Uoo
• 189 unoctennium Uoe
• 190 unennilium Uen
• 191 unennunium Ueu
• 192 unennbium Ueb
• 193 unenntrium Uet
• 194 unennquadium Ueq
• 195 unennpentium Uep
• 196 unennhexium Ueh
• 197 unennseptium Ues
• 198 unennoctium Ueo
• 199 unennennium Uee
• 200 binilnilium Bnn
• 201 binilunium Bnu
• 202 binilbium Bnb
• 203 biniltrium Bnt
• 204 binilquadium Bnq
• 205 binilpentium Bnp
• 206 binilhexium Bnh
• 207 binilseptium Bns
• 208 biniloctium Bno
• 209 binilennium Bne
• 210 biunnilium Bun
• 211 biununium Buu
• 212 biunbium Bub
• 213 biuntrium But
• 214 biunquadium Buq
• 215 biunpentium Bup
• 216 biunhexium Buh
• 217 biunseptium Bus
• 218 biunoctium Buo

[edit] Poll

This going back and forth is tiring. I strongly support the recent delinking of uncreated articles. Until someone has something to say about it, leave it unlinked.

Content of the poll:

• Element articles shall only be linked to this page if the article linked 1) exists 2) contains information other than boiler plate material. Elements may have articles even if they have not been detected, if there is information of encyclopediac relevance.

Stirling Newberry 05:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Stirling Newberry 05:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
2. There should be an "or" between 1 and 2 above. If there remains any article on a non-hypothetical element that's only boilerplate, slap a tag on it and recruit some knowledgable people to help. If there's an article that has legit non-half-assed-guess verifiable information on a not-yet-existent or only-briefly-existent element, it should be kept and improved. Anything in neither of those two categories, but widely used in theoretical discussions, should be redirected to Transactinide element. The ones that are nothing more than extensions of the naming system with no cited usage (disregarding Wikipedia mirrors) should be deleted. Barno 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discovered

This is probably a dumb question, but what is meant by "discovered" in this article? Any other elements that come along are ones that will have been "created" by scientists in a labratory, right? Generally, we don't "discover" things that we artificially make our selves. func(talk) 04:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The scientist did indeed create the particular atoms, but the notion of an atom with 116 protons already existed in the platonic sense. What the scientist discovered is that atoms of that element can exist in our universe. So while they "created" the atoms, they "discovered" the element. 140.180.149.219 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this table needed

I recently created an article on Untriseptium, which gives reasons why elements of atomic number above 138 are unstable. Basically the 1s electrons of elements with atomic numbers higher than this would have to be traveling faster than the speed of light.

Therefore is the table to element 218 needed, considering that one could never generate atoms or ions of them, even if one were able to create a stable central charge. --Neo 22:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• The table in that case should extend to atleast element 139... 132.205.64.91 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nuclei of atomic number 139 and above could exist entirely stripped of electrons. Just like H+ or He2+ which have no electrons, this ion would be Uto139+. Some people conjecture that their massive density along with an occasional proton would give neutron stars huge nuclei. Flying Jazz 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I find the addition of period 9 to be bonkers. Period 8 is bad enough...--feline1 12:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)