Talk:F-block: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:18, 6 April 2012

Elements Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this redirect, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Italics?

Currently there is a mixture of italic and non-italic 'f's through this short article. Anyone know which is correct in each circumstance [f-shell, f-block, f-orbital, 4f,...]?137.222.142.27 (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration#Notation suggests non-italic is preferable - I have standardised in this article.137.222.142.27 (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F-orbital

Anyone know how many electrons an F-orbital holds? (As in s holds 2, p holds 6, d holds 10, etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthias 01 (talk • contribs).

See Electron shell#Subshells, or azimuthal quantum number for more detailed derivation. Femto 11:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(s²p⁶d¹⁰f¹⁴) ~~~~ Wd930PeriodicTable (Talk) (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lutetium and Lawrencium?

In other pages (Lutetium, Lawrencium, d-block, Lanthanide, Actinide) it states Lutetium and Lawrencium can also be considered part of the D block. This should be mentioned on this page. 99.22.52.253 (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of atomic electron configuration and number of electrons per shell

If no one objects, I would like to add to the table two rows, atomic electron configuration and number of electrons per shell. I guess, it is still debated which elements belong to f-block, maybe having that extra info in one place will help people understand why those elements belong to this block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.110.16 (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added those two rows to both sets of elements. The table looks a little bit cluttered; however, it shows the basis for the inclusion / creation of f-block. I hope that the extra info offsets the clutterness of this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.110.16 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of 7s² shell in actinoids

Comparing electron shell configurations of those two groups, lantanoids part doesn't show the last shell - 6s². On the other hand, actinoids part does include the last shell - 7s², what makes it rather more difficult to read the latter one. Are there any reasons to include the last shell while showing actinoids electron configuration, v.s., not to include the last shell while showing lantanoids electron configuration? Also, by removing (actinoids) or adding (lantanoids) the last shell, it would be easier to see electron shell similarities between elements from the same column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.110.16 (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I will remove 7s² shell from actinoids part of the table. My take is that it will make that table more readable (also for comparisons).

Revision as of 05:33, 5 April 2012 edit SineBot (talk \| contribs) Bots 2,548,633 edits m Signing comment by 67.164.110.16 - "→‎Listing of 7s2 shell in actinoids: new section" ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:18, 6 April 2012 edit undo 67.164.110.16 (talk) →‎Listing of 7s2 shell in actinoids Next edit →
Line 22:		Line 22:

	Comparing electron shell configurations of those two groups, lantanoids part doesn't show the last shell - 6s<sup>2</sup>. On the other hand, actinoids part does include the last shell - 7s<sup>2</sup>, what makes it rather more difficult to read the latter one. Are there any reasons to include the last shell while showing actinoids electron configuration, v.s., not to include the last shell while showing lantanoids electron configuration? Also, by removing (actinoids) or adding (lantanoids) the last shell, it would be easier to see electron shell similarities between elements from the same column. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.164.110.16\|67.164.110.16]] ([[User talk:67.164.110.16\|talk]]) 05:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		Comparing electron shell configurations of those two groups, lantanoids part doesn't show the last shell - 6s<sup>2</sup>. On the other hand, actinoids part does include the last shell - 7s<sup>2</sup>, what makes it rather more difficult to read the latter one. Are there any reasons to include the last shell while showing actinoids electron configuration, v.s., not to include the last shell while showing lantanoids electron configuration? Also, by removing (actinoids) or adding (lantanoids) the last shell, it would be easier to see electron shell similarities between elements from the same column. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.164.110.16\|67.164.110.16]] ([[User talk:67.164.110.16\|talk]]) 05:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			: If there are no objections, I will remove 7s<sup>2</sup> shell from actinoids part of the table. My take is that it will make that table more readable (also for comparisons).