Talk:Extended periodic table

Although element 121 is called eka-actinium, doesn't it belong to the g-block? After all, it could refer to element 141 or 143. --Tachyon the Comic Creator (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the name is not technically correct. It's not uncommon because there's nothing actually above 121, but really the relationship between Ac and 121 is only secondary: they both have 3 valence electrons, but the set of valence orbitals is not quite analogous (similar to the Al-Sc relationship). Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I use the Scandium-Yttrium-Lanthanum-Actinium trend, not the Scandium-Yttrium-Lutetium-Lawrencium trend, so Unbiunium might be eka-actinium, and Unbibium...it will be something new. For example, In Period 6 and 7, there are the lanthanides and actinides, which are excluded in Period 5 and before. Period 4 and 5 includes the transition metals, which are excluded in Period 3 and before. Period 2 and 3 includes the boron elements, the crystallogens, the pnictogens, the chalogens, the halogens, and the alkaline earth metals, even though Period 1 does not (Hydrogen is said to have its own group since it is similar to the non-metals, the noble gases, and the alkali metals, which is very confusing).

What I am trying to say here is that every new column or some break in the periodic table like the lanthanides would end up having something new ZokiZokias (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Sc-Y-La-Ac doesn't really make any sense. It changes the rules between the two neighbouring elements Ac and Th, which both have no f-electrons as single atoms, but both can use f-orbitals when chemically bonded. Logically speaking one should be treating them the same way.

121 is indeed calculated to be something new – the first time the g-orbitals can be used for chemistry. Though it would probably be a bit like La, Ac, Th, and Lr in failing to have the right orbital fill on time in a bare atom (it will probably fill when the atom is chemically bonded). With that said, 5g is probably going to be so deeply buried inside the atom that elements 124+ will probably not differ very much from uranium for a while, in about the same way rare earths mimic yttrium. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, we do not know where each element is or whst their properties are. Ununennium & Unbinilium are expected to be alkali metals and alkaline earth metals respectively, and Unbiunium, Unbibium, Unbiquadium, Unbipentium, Unbihexium, and Unbiseptium are expected superactinides. We may never know, Unbiseptium might be a pink liquid and act like a pnictogen, or Unbibium, which is a room-temperature plasma, and gives off Unbibium Vigintoxide. Or ununennium being added to group 19.

We will never know due to short half-lives. ZokiZokias (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, is it true that spilling quark matter onto unstable elements like Bohrium makes them stable? ZokiZokias (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Dunno about "never". Mc was chemically investigated this year, and there are ideas on how even Lv and Ts could be in the future. It will be difficult for sure, but not physically impossible.

I have not heard of this. Double sharp (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Moscovium is predicted to act like a Group 15 element. (Yay!)

Livermorium is predicted to act like a Group 16 element. (Yay!).

Nihonium and Tennessine's properties are debatable:

Nihonium might act like a halogen (Nihonine) and Tennessine acting like a Icosagen/Group 13 Element (Tennessium), but it also might be switched.

As for Flerovium and Oganesson, Flerovium might be a liquid or a gas (Flerogen/Flerovigen), maybe even a noble gas! (Fleron/Flerovon). Then there is Oganesson, which would act like a Crystallogen/Group 14 Element.

Seaborgium might be the most refactory metal, Hassium being the densest, and Meitnerium being both refactory and dense. Roentgenium is under Copper, Silver, and Gold, so it might have a different color (Green Metal?). Fermium-Lawrencium act like regular actinides. Copernicium is predicted to be a solid or liquid or gas, but it might have a low ionizing point!

Ruthenium, Rhodium, Palladium, Osmium, Iridium, Platinum are all in the platinum group, so the new candidates might be Hassium, Meitnerium, and Darmstadium. All of the Platinum Group Metals are part of the noble metals, with Gold, and Silver is often used. Roentgenium would the in the noble metals and coinage metals, not the platinum group metals. Copper and Mercury is sometimes used. Technetium, Rhenium, Arsenic, Antimony, Bismuth, and Polonium is a noble metal, IN A LIMITED SENCE (all from Noble metal and paraphrased). The Candidates for the limited sence noble metals would be Moscovium and Livermorium, which are under Bismuth and Polonium respectively, and Bohrium is under Rhenium, which is a metal in a limited sence.

I do not know about Rutherfordium, Dubnium. You might know. ZokiZokias (talk) 17:06, 12 December 1024 (UTC)

Hopefully this never happens though Vishesh the awasome (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Vishesh the awasome, did you come across a news item/publication talking about the subject? I am not sure what you would like this discussion to be about. Choucas Bleu 🐦‍⬛ 11:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should we, for example when discussing the compound H171, use just the number or rather the provisional element symbol and maybe even name (HUsu) which would lead to Hydrogen unseptunide etc.? I am not a chemist or nuclear physicist or so, but fascinated layman and would prefer the provisional element symbols. PragmaFisch (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood something, @Double sharp. On the current chart of nuclides, I found an isotope with nearly A = 270 as "soon" as Lawrencium, Lr-266. And on that side of the chart of nuclides, we might well not know many isotopes or at least some of them. Maybe, the r-process would then run up a border as early as Lawrencium (or maybe Rutherfordium or Dubnium?).

Or do you see the border a lot sooner than even that? PragmaFisch (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@PragmaFisch: It's probably a lot sooner – we barely know the neutron-rich side of the chart of nuclides that high up (²³⁸U is beta-stable, and we only know uranium isotopes to ²⁴²U). A plausible r-process path is shown here, but anything we have is quite an extrapolation. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The red path shown passes through ²⁷¹Np and ²⁹²No, but addition of "these mass numbers are reached by elements between ‌‌‌‌neptunium and nobelium" is too confusing due to abnormal mass numbers. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, we don't know the exact point (Z or A) at which neutron-induced fission becomes the dominant reaction pathway, and there is significant variation among different models. ^Complex/_Rational 15:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)