User talk:Double sharp/Idealised electron configurations

Moved first two sections from the main page.

Chemically active subshells

@Double sharp: just a thought about chemically active subshells: http://www.primefan.ru/stuff/chem/ptable/subshells.html Droog Andrey (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Droog Andrey: Wow, thank you! I'll have to make some updates when I have time to think about what this means for my approach. ;) Double sharp (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Cd seems to be an unique anomaly, but still close to the border: the excitation of Cd⁺ to 4d⁹5s² requires 50.8% of ionization energy. Droog Andrey (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Removed an adjustable parameter. Cd is no longer an anomaly :) Droog Andrey (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Droog Andrey: Nice. ^_^ How, BTW, do we deal with those excitations to the next s-shell in some p elements? How many percent of the IE do they require? I mean, I gather they are not actually significantly chemically active, except for 8s in the 7p elements, right? (d-hybridisation structures AFAIK contribute only negligibly at best to the stabilisation of hypervalent compounds, but I suppose we can call P and Xe just exceptions which are very close to the ionisation energy anyway.) Double sharp (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Yes, (n+1)s are barely involved, even in species like [XeF₈]^2-. I still have no straight answer how to deal with these excitations :) Droog Andrey (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Droog Andrey: When you say "barely involved", do you think it's worth reflecting? Because if so it might be worth using the Janet arrangement (also to clarify sort-of double periodicity Li-Na-K when core changes from s² to s²p⁶). Double sharp (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: I don't think this has reliable chemical sense. Droog Andrey (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Droog Andrey: Thanks for your opinion. I've reverted my table back to standard alkali-metal-to-noble-gas. (Well it still shows Cn and Og as nonmetals but that's just that I wanted to match whatever calculation was latest, since after all I can change it later.)

Anyway, thank you so much for listening to and correcting the ideas of an interested amateur of periodicity; after all, this is basically the chemist and physicist's party. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of nonmetals

Sulfur deserves to be a strong non-metal I think :) Droog Andrey (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Droog Andrey: Okay, done. I was on the fence for a bit about that one, because the S₈→H₂S potential is close to that of C, and the S₈→S²⁻ potential is even negative. But it does attack the more electronegative metals like Ag, which is pretty impressive. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you count N as a strong non-metal then you're more of less obliged to include S. The latter's capacity to attack Ag doesn't count for that much, given Ag is too reactive to be a noble metal. Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Ag is quite unreactive towards O, it prefers the heavier chalcogens. But the same may be said of Au.

Given that I think that the inclusion of N as a strong non-metal is absolutely necessary to get the most electronegative donors together, I would much rather include both N and S as strong than exclude them both. Nitrogen is fairly clearly more related to oxygen than carbon: just look at its lack of catenation ability and its reactivity when single-bonded. N₂ and O₂ are both kinetically hindered oxidisers because of their strong triple/double bonds, that's not a surprise. But an oxidiser N₂ is still, as a chat with Li, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba will tell you. Or titanium, which even burns in a nitrogen atmosphere. If the price for improving understanding this way is to include sulfur as well, I am willing, as it's quite strong too. I suppose we will not need to include selenium even if its +6 state is more oxidising. ^_^

P.S. Is iodine really that much stronger than nitrogen or sulfur? Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of electronegativity it is weaker. In terms of oxidizing power it is about the same. In terms of electron affinity it is stronger. In terms of metal-nonmetal dichotomy it is closer to metals, probably in the same boat with selenium and carbon. Droog Andrey (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short observation

Re: "I thank most of all Droog Andrey (= A. V. Kulsha) for his correcting me away from the erroneous Sc-Y-La table."

I feel that there is nothing intrinsically "erroneous" about the Sc-Y-La table, just as there is nothing intrinsically erroneous about an Lu table. Equally, there is nothing needing "correcting" unless you believe in needless disputes.

The table you get depends on the perspective of interest. It's true an He-Lu table does a better job of reflecting the pre-symmetry breaking symmetry underlying the periodic table. That's doesn't mean other periodic table representations such as the IUPAC table, are less true, less important, less fundamental, or "incorrect".

For example, in the free atoms, the fact that the f-shell does not start filling until Ce is a fundamental aspect of the real-life aufbau process. Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Thank you for your comment. However, I will not change it, as there is no symmetry break. In real chemistry, the delay of the f shell to cerium is not important, as supported by reliable sources.

I certainly do believe, following Scerri, that there is an optimal form of the periodic table. And that the dispute over group 3 is one that is worth having. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: Scerri no longer believes in an optimal form. There certainly is symmetry breaking. The question is whether or not a person chooses to show it (as do I), or not (as do you). Sandbh (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh: Scerri has changed his mind about it before. I agree with his 2019 opinion, not his 2020 one.

We have gone over this multiple times. There is no symmetry break in what I understand are the chemically relevant configurations, so I do not reflect one. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]