Talk:Period 2 element

Will do
Like Period 1 element, I'm sure this can make GA-standard and I'll work on it. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a note: I am a bit weary of the standard of period 1 element one. I defiantly believe more should be added about the period itself, and not just briefly discuss the elements. Nergaal (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Period 1 is a bit difficult to describe as a whole because it only has two elements. Starting from period 2, I think it is better to focus on the trends; I think it would be helpful to add plots that show how various physical properties vary throughout the period. --Itub (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I have some lovely graphs in my chemistry text book,so I could reproduce them on Excel and upload - although I don't really know how to upload images. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 15:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * on the left part of the page, below the search box you should see an "upload file" link. after that, everything is pretty self-explanatory. Nergaal (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is anybody still working on this page? Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gah! Been busy, I'll be over a day or two. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 23:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The period 2 section is where the IUPAC periodic table begins to go wrong by not stopping at 4 Be Beryllium and starting a period 3 with 5 B Boron, like in the Janet periodic table. Then after the 2 elements of Groups 1 and 2, the third period would still have 8 elements from 5 B Boron to 12 Mg Magnesium. And the subdivisions of the third period would be 2 + 4 = 2 = 8. And the 6 member transition series would be divided into the first 2, and the last 4. See Talk:Charles JanetWFPM (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * THe reason the table does that is to start a new period each time a new shell is started. I've already had this discussion at talk:periodic table.... StringTheory11 23:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you'll look at the format of the Extended periodic table and just imagine the 2 left columns raised 1 level and moved over to the right of the right end of the extended periodic table, you'll then have the format of the Janet table, which doesn't change the sequence, just the format. Isn't that worth recognizing?WFPM (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Group 3 element which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Neon
How can you compare its “inertness” against helium? Which comparison is appropriate? These are the only two elements never forming a covalent bond, except perhaps in some space cations. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is based on computational chemistry: there are several predicted "real" helium compounds, but the same cannot be said for neon (see also Errol G. Lewars, Modelling Marvels, pp. 70–71). Many predicted helium compounds have neon analogues that are predicted to be unbound. It seems the problem is Pauli repulsion from the 2p electrons; helium lacks a 1p shell. Incidentally, for this reason it has sometimes been suggested (by Wojciech Grochala, Henry Bent, Eric Scerri, Felice Grandinetti, Charles Janet, and probably some others) that helium be moved to the top of group 2. This fits the electron configurations (hydrogen and helium are 1s1 and 1s2, the same as the alkali and alkaline earth metals; it's just that since there is no 1p subshell the meaning of these configurations has changed), lets the most inert noble gas head group 18, and underlines the first-row anomaly as s >> p > d > f. (I personally think that the very obvious analogy of He to the other noble gases should probably trump this; hydrogen is a different case as it doesn't fit the halogen trend so well. But serious chemists have suggested that helium go to group 2 and appear atop beryllium.) Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * “helium lacks a 1p shell” again ☺☺☺ 1p is non-existent in our Euclidean space for mathematical reasons, in principle, for any particle (not necessarily electron) and any spherically symmetric force (not necessarily Coulomb) . As for mostly-inertness, can anybody replace dubious with an authoritative source then, please? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly well that there is no 1p for anything for mathematical reasons, but the point I am making is a consequence of this restricted to electrons: that 1s2 is a complete duet by itself (unlike ns2np6 octets), and so 1s1 and 1s2 are half-filled and full subshells and do not have the same chemical significance that, say, the 2s1 and 2s2 of Li and Be do. I have added Grochala's article as a citation. Double sharp (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it follows from the manner how the principal quantum number is defined. Defining it for an arbitrary force law is a murky question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The maximum number of electrons that these elements can accommodate
Guys, you write about things which poorly understand. The reason why a period-2 element can’t “accommodate” more than ten electrons is primarily not orbitals and shells. Every atom, hydrogen included, possesses all $n = 1, 2, 3, 4,$ etc. shells which are available for electrons, possibly in an excited state. The main reason is that for $Z ≤ 10$ the atom can’t electrically hold more than 10 electrons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)