Table of Elements

[elas]

...I still don't understand what you are saying...but it does look interesting.

 

I hope you will also find this interesting.

 

Yeah, chemistry gets to be a super pain with elements way off the nuclear "island of stability". This work tends to not get research money either because no marketable ideas can come from a compound of an element with a 2 s half-life. Not to mention that spectroscopy makes less and less sense as oxidation states become less and less defined in high "n" f-, and predictably g- and h-orbitals.

 

Perhaps we should go with the theory of Composite Femions, but use (natural) magnetic compression. After all (as the song goes) -

 

Way down south where I come from

folks ain't got much learning'

but the're happy as can be,

doing what comes naturally.

 

 

I'm not sure that anyone, except, perhaps, Elas, understands what Elas is saying. (Apart from the bereavement of course. Sorry to hear about that.)

Some of the diagrams are quite pretty and have nice colours in them.

 

I can postulate that the electron distribution of the outermost shell of element 172 is shaped like an elephant.

Nobody is ever going to prove me wrong.

It's not science.

 

in The Periodic Table by Eric R. Scerri, Fig. 10.9 gives the elements of Periods 2 and 3 that display diagonal behavior. At present there is no structural explanation for this observation. Below is a graph of the Outer Field Magnetic Compression fractions for all posible Period 2 pairs; from this it can be seen that diagonal behavior occurs between pairs that do not conform to the pattern followed by those elements with no diagonal behavior.

Now where is your elephant?

 

Edited December 12, 2010 by elas

[John Cuthber]

"My contention is that we are not looking in the right place for a stable high Z nucleus."

Based on what?

The evidence so far shows that I am right.

[elas]

"My contention is that we are not looking in the right place for a stable high Z nucleus."

Based on what?

The evidence so far shows that I am right.

 

Please read reply 22

[mississippichem]

Its not a matter of looking in the right place for nuclear stability. Certain combinations of neutrons and protons are inherently unstable due to a bunch of well established factors. It just so happens, and logically so, that alot of the high Z nuclei are unstable. When the ratio of neutrons to protons gets too far out of whack or if the number of protons is really high in general then nuclei tend to be unstable. "Not looking in the right place" is kind of a meaningless statement when no matter what mechanism you use to create said nucleus it's still subject to the same rules that govern stability.

[John Cuthber]

Please read reply 22

Why, will it help?

Is it, for example, actual evidence, or is it just a big pretty coloured table?

 

Apart from anything else, nuclear stability isn't anything to do with the periodic table so, if that post is relevant to my question then it's off topic.

[elas]

Why, will it help?

Is it, for example, actual evidence, or is it just a big pretty coloured table?

 

Apart from anything else, nuclear stability isn't anything to do with the periodic table so, if that post is relevant to my question then it's off topic.

 

This forum is not primarily about nuclear stability, but primarily it is about electron shell structure and the possibility of creating an eighth period, (i.e. although related to nuclear stability it is not quite the the same thing). The numerical tables and text that can be found in reply 22 is an attempt to show that there is no possibility of finding an eighth period.

 

The pretty coloured table uses the same magnetic compression fractions as used in the reply made earlier today to explain diagonal behavior. I have used the same fractions to explain the Knight's move and will be adding that shortly.

 

Your question does not decide the topic, that was decided in my opening post.

 

PS: Since submitting the quick reply shown above, I have checked with the works of Jainendra and Scerri. Composite Fermions theory being concerned solely with magnetic compression of electrons, is not concerned with nuclear stability. However Scerri writing about the elements does devote 5 pages (out of 296) to nuclear stability, so it is a related topic that I will look into along the lines shown in reply 26, if only to prove that my work is not just a pretty table.

Edited December 13, 2010 by elas