Talk:Superactinide

A superactinide would be a member of a series that began at Z = 121 and had a content of 18 elements. Or maybe Iupac would have 19 elements by including Z = 139 on the list. Note that each successive series involves 4 more elements than the previous series. And the extended periodic table would end at Z = 168 for Iupac and at Z = 170 for the increased Janet Periodic table. A 2nd row of elements in this area would require an additional 50 elements and extend to Z = 220 in an extended Janet periodic table. However the number of permitted "extra neutrons" above the Z number of neutrons would only probably rise to about 100 extra neutrons due to structural limitations.WFPM (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)To see a picture of a set of nuclear models organized in accordance with the format of the Janet periodic table take a look at Talk: Nuclear model .WFPM (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)It is therefor fairly easy to make a model of such a supersize giant atom as for Z = 122, but given the instability of the row number 8 elements, it is hard to imagine how such a giant stable atom came into existence. See Talk:Isotopes of nobelium.

Comments
This article is nearly GA, but needs more references in a few parts and should discuss more about the expected physical and chemical properties of the superactinides. (Doesn't the EB reference have some?) Double sharp (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempts at synthesis
BTW, 5 milli-_ ≠ 5,000,000 pico-_ = 5 micro-_. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which figure is right (5 mb or 5,000,000 pb). This problem is also at the Unbibium article. Double sharp (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disputed
Earlier, we had used a non-relativistic approach to the extended periodic table. Now, however, due to the fact that it is more accurate representation of the behavior of superheavy undiscovered elements, wikipedia has switched to a relativistic extended periodic table. However, this article has not been updated yet, and until it is, it is not factually accurate. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirected to Period 8 element, which covers the same material, but is much more accurate. Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)