Talk:Period 8 element

Deletion
As their existence is scientifically possible, and they can & will be discussed, thee is no reason to delete. If disagree, list of AfD so the chemists can have their say.DGG 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I say keep as well. I am rewriting all the period articles. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please consider the problems of having a WP:content fork with Extended periodic table.
 * How will you decide which elements are in period 8? — kwami (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This was merged a year ago and that is a better solution than a separate article on group 8. Extended periodic table can deal with all possible new elements in a better way. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible source
http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/transactinide.pdf Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that this reference begins as a discussion of the (transactinide series) of elements, thus leaving out the first 2 elements of the IUPAC list of their 7th periodic element list, and starting with element 89 Actinium, in accordance with the listing in the Janet periodic table.WFPM (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Inherent problem
The problem with the IUPAC Period 8 content is inherent to the general problem to the whole IUPAC periodic table, in that each period does not begin at the beginning of each series. If the second series of the table (3LI + 4Be)is seen as a second planar alpha particle on top of the first particle, and then the remaining series to be either a (4 element increase)Wrap layer around the centerline of the previous 2 layers or else a second topping layer, then the configuration of the atomic structure becomes understandable, and the the number of elements included in each layer becomes: Layer1 = 2, Layer2 = 2, Layer3 = 8, Layer 4 = 8, Layer 5 = 18, Layer6 = 18, Layer7 = 32, Layer8 = 32, Layer9 = 50, and Layer10 = 50, As in the Janet periodic table. Thus in accordance with the Janet table, the G block should begin at the beginning of the 9th series and include the sequence of 18,+14+10+6+2 = the next 50 elements.WFPM (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, period 8 refers to the IUPAC table, not Janet's. I don't see why we should differ from IUPAC's much-more-widely used table - besides, IUPAC's recommendations are the ones Wikipedia uses for chemistry articles. --Jasper Deng (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comment and the point is well taken. But the scientific problem at hand is to understand and hopefully rationalize the information and the causative factors related thereto. And you can plainly see the confusion that the IUPAC periodic table format is causing about how many periods and also series within periods and elements within the series that are more better formatted and displayed and hopefully understood in the organization of the simpler formatted Janet periodic table. So I guess that if you want to retain your chemical utility concept of the organization of the IUPAC periodic table format that's fine but it makes it harder for you to determine and/or understand the physical accumulation/decay processes related to the occurrence and atomic stability characteristics of the various isotopes. And of course, what we are trying to get at are the facts. So, as they say, "you pays your money and you take your choice" But you're making it hard on yourself by not paying attention to the format of the Janet periodic table.Cheers.WFPM (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? How is a table based on orbitals related to nuclear properties? Even if the Janet table is more useful, IUPAC is the way Wikipedia goes - if you want to change that, make a proposal to. I also don't see how the Janet table makes a statement about the number of periods - you cannot compare the two because a period means something different in these tables.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not interested in the IUPAC periodic table per se, I'm interested in the atom as a real physical entity. And it ought to be possible to make a legible drawing or physical model of at least the simpler atomic structures that we can visualize and use as a medium of communication and discussion. and we are presently unable to do that due to disagreements of concept. Take the Alpha particle for instance. We can't agree on its size or shape. and for Carbon we can't agree on it's manner of accumulative creation. We don't have a concept of the geometrical shape of the atomic nucleus. And we make all kinds of assumptions about the existence of a "cloud" of "constant energy level" orbital electrons. Which all goes to show how little we really know. And our forum of communication doesn't want to hear our speculations but only information that we think came from a "reliable and verifyable source other than ourselves. So we have information communication problems. So you might say that we're presently in the information sort out phase and that it will get sorted out sooner or later after most of us are gone.WFPM (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But how does Janet's table do this?--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, in my case I built some real physical models out of 7/16 inch wooden dowel rod and put them together to represent a way to accumulate them into a compact physical entity. And to organize this effort, I needed a progressive size accumulation chart to show a system of accumulation that would keep the accumulation process in the order of the next least size incremental increase, and wound up with a set of models and a periodic table chart that best represented this method of accumulation. It was only later after I got into Wikipedia that I found out that an identical periodic table format had already been invented by Charles Janet. So I'm stuck with the fact that he already has acquired a title of prior art with relation to the format of the chart. And the implications of the models and associated chart are that there was and is a natural optimum set of rules and processes for the accumulation of atomic nucleons into a stable and/or nearly stable set of elemental categories of atomic structures, and what that is we are trying to find out. And to do this we need to accumulate a large and hopefully sufficient number of facts and a minimum number of opinions such as to arrive at a rational concept concerning this subject matter. So I give and take and hope for the best.WFPM (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC) PS, I also bought a number of 3/8 inch dia by 3/8 inch cylindrical Neodymium magnets and put them together in accordance with the requirements of their magnetic properties and thus determined that there are rules of association of magnetized cylinders that have to be followed and that the structure of my models was capable of following those rules so there you have it.WFPM (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's great, but you're going to have to add a separate section for Janet's model, because IUPAC's table is the one the article refers to. A photo of your physical model would be even better.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that! And appreciate your saying so. But my submitted real physical model image got deleted as part of a program of elimination of the Nuclear model article, so you're going to have to get by with a description unless you can figure out a way to undelete my submitted image. So I can merely point out the conceptual deficiencies of the IUPAC periodic table and leave it at that. I hope you also read the Talk:Charles Janet article, which elaborates on the rationale for the length and subsectioning of the various periods and series, and which is informative as to their length of construction in either case.WFPM (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you'll look in my talk section, under Talk:Nuclear model, you'll find my discussion of the subject matter.WFPM (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

repeated Pyykkö model
Even before I touched this page, the table for Pyyro model table is twice in this page. . Is that OK? -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Complete overhaul required
Soon I will probably completely rewrite this article to make it deal with the Pyykkö model (actual science, and not just an extrapolation which is agreed by scientists not to work) of period 8 (Z from 119 to 172). Elements 165–168 are arguably in period 9, but since there are no noble gases after 118 to 172, it's somewhat justifiable to consider elements 119–172 to all constitute an eighth period, with 54 elements. Double sharp (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, based on Fricke: 119–164 will be period 8, and 165–172 will be period 9. Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I still can't understand what you're trying to do. the possible period lengths are 2, 2+6=8, 2+6+10=18, 2+6+10+14=32, and 2+6+10+14+18=50. So when you left out the second 2 period in the IUPAC table, you then burdened the rest of the table with 2 extra elements up to 118 in the 7th period. But the 8th period should contain 50 elements (from 119 to 168 and the 9th period likewise contain 50 elements (from 169 to 218). Then if you want room for more elements you should start a new 10th period with 2+6+10+14+18+22=72 elements, which would reach up to number 290. So what"s so complicated?WFPM (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Because due to relativistic effects, the actual chemical behaviour of these elements is expected to diverge somewhat from these predictions. For example, 168 is predicted to not be the noble gas after 118; that honour goes to 172! (Loosely speaking, the 8th-9th period "gains" 4 extra elements due to even more wacky electron filling order than you see in the transition metals.) Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Period 8 element
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Period 8 element's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Duellmann": From Hassium:  From Alkaline earth metal: http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/kollo/Duellmann_FIAS-Kolloquium.pdf 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:48, 11 December 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 21:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

G Block accumulation process
The accumulation of the 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 18 Elements 121 through 138 of the G block series is involved with the additions of 18 2-neucleon (deuteron) components to a 4-sided structure. They are evidently added in a dynamically balancing manner, which involves each odd addition being followed by a rebalancing even addition. This results in the odd number additions being less stable. Also, the number 3 addition of the first 4 addition is particularly unstable similar to the same position occurrence case that occurs in 43Tc and 61Pm. The predominant failure mode in this area is that of alpha emission, with the occurrence of atomic fission being an indication of the existence of a fairly balanced nucleus.WFPM (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

8p3/2 and 8p1/2
To me, it sounds like a Martian speech. Articles electron shell and atomic orbital also do not know this notation. Experts, add an appropriate link, please (which possibly will require writing a new section). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)