Elemental Puzzle

[bsquared]

Originally Posted by davar55

Thanks. This is helpful and informative.

I didn't entirely remember correctly... wikipedia has more info.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

How, exactly, do you think the electron cloud could hold the nucleus together?

First of all, I'm not the first to conjecture this, or at least I 'seem' to
remember coming across it before.

Secondly, simply by electron-proton repulsion, i.e. F=Ke1e2/r^2.
When applied to a well-bound whole cloud surrounding the nucleus,
the protons are simply more constrained to remain in proximity to
each other and to the neutrons. The only open question is whether
the forces are sufficient for superheavy-elements, and I say (without
computation yet) they must be.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by bsquared

I didn't entirely remember correctly... wikipedia has more info.

Just corrected the spelling (call me nuts ... I may be :))

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

How, exactly, do you think the electron cloud could hold the nucleus together?

When you write "f and g subshell electrons are close binders", what does that mean? Do f and g subshell electrons have greater influence than s, p and d subshell electrons? Why? What about h and i subshell electrons? Do they have greater, or less, influence than other subshell electrons?

First, there ARE no h, i , or higher subshells -- it stops at g !!

And you have to know something about the orbital shapes of s, p, and d
electrons first, before you can know why f electrons are closer binders,
and the theoretical g electrons even more so.

As to why it stops at s,p,d,f,g and why it stops at row9 and why it
stops on a dime at element 200, I repeat: it's my proof. However,
as a hint: look at my generatable periodic table, especially at the
column of noble gasses. Best hint I can give. Would you expect more?

[davar55]

Because of my repect for them, I'd like to hear Xilman's (Paul) and
ewmayer's (Ernst) comments so far. Really, have I gone off the
deep end, or does some of this seem possibly new and important?
Or do you want to wait until the weekend, when I can better present?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

When applied to a well-bound whole cloud surrounding the nucleus, the protons are simply more constrained to remain in proximity to each other and to the neutrons. The only open question is whether the forces are sufficient for superheavy-elements, and I say (without computation yet) they must be.

So, if a superheavy element is ionized, its nucleus would be less stable than if it had all its normal number of electrons?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So, if a superheavy element is ionized (loses one or more electrons), that would make its nucleus less stable?

Well, how many electrons are we talking about? 1 or 2 or 3 or 4?
And they would be p electrons anyway. So the nuclear effect would
be minimal or even insignificant.

[davar55]

Remember the ionization electrons (those that involve its chemical
properties) are, for larger elements, the six p electrons.

[davar55]

It's one thing to be adversarial (I said I welcomed comments and was
a bit afraid of questions), but it might help if you did more than just
question and actually threw some chem or physics back at me.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

And you have to know something about the orbital shapes of s, p, and d electrons first, before you can know why f electrons are closer binders, and the theoretical g electrons even more so.

I've encountered electron orbital shapes in physics classes. I don't recall any use of the term "close binder" in relation to them.

When I Google "close binders electron", no result on the first four pages of returns seems to refer to "close binder" or even "binder" in the same way that you apply those terms to electron subshells.

So, this time without presuming that I am ignorant of mainstream physics, please explain what I asked for:

When you write "f and g subshell electrons are close binders", what does that mean?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I've encountered electron orbital shapes in physics classes. I don't recall any use of the term "close binder" in relation to them.

When I Google "close binders electron", no result on the first four pages of returns seems to refer to "close binder" or even "binder" in the same way that you apply those terms to electron subshells.

So, this time without presuming that I am ignorant of mainstream physics, please explain what I asked for:

When you write "f and g subshell electrons are close binders", what does that mean?

Cheeshead, I never made such an assumption, and apologize if I offended.

The s-subshell is spherical and farthest of its level.
The p-subshell is tri-axial and closer.
The d-subshell I'm not sure how to describe, but its electrons get even closer.
Similarly, the f-subshell electrons get closer (within a row) and are thus
closer bound to the nucleus.
Finally, the g-subshell electrons in the ninth row only get even closer
bound to the nucleus.