User talk:Double sharp/Unbihexium

R8R comments

CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) -- why the parenthesized note? It doesn't spell out the acronym and the organization is better known as CERN anyway. I'd rather suggest mentioning it is located in Switzerland and that it is a nuclear research organization (you may think the latter is obvious from the name but names are often misleading; I went on to google for some misleading names and learned there once was California State Normal School... in Pennsylvania. Now it is called California University of Pennsylvania. Also there's Indiana University of Pennsylvania.) as you can't expect everyone known what CERN is and where it is located, which gives a nice context.

13-15 try an en dash here, too

Actually most comments I could make would closely parallel those I made for the draft on 124. If that's okay with you, I'll wait until you respond and, if you agree, act on those, to be summoned here again.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019 new start

and eka-plutonium would instead refer to element 146 or 148 -- hmm. I re-read the source that supports this statement. First of all, I don't see how it supports the idea of eka-plutonium being 148. Second, it doesn't mention the "eka-" nomenclature, either. What you could say instead is that if onу assumes that eka-plutonium is the element of the f-block directly underneath plutonium like we usually do, then that element would be element 146. The source does not mention the "eka-" part but it looks like it does if you haven't read the source, so you should mention that assumption explicitly.

I created a footnote explaining how that conclusion is reached from the definiton of eka- and the extended periodic tables presented in the sources. Is this adequate, or need this statement be removed as WP:OR for drawing conclusions not explicitly described, even though both components are well-documented?

I reworked this part a little bit. Could you provide an extended PT that has 148 directly under Pu?--R8R (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added a paper from Nefedov as a source here (and also in extended periodic table) that supports {{Extended periodic table (by Fricke, 32 columns, compact)}}, which is where the original statement was from.

beta-stable copernicium isotopes -- WP:SEAOFBLUE. You could try "beta-stable isotopes of copernicium"

Done with minor tweaks, the links are no longer adjacent to each other.

loosely bound -- the wikilink explains what you mean there, but if you say upfront that "126 is going to have low ionization energies and thus be able to lose all eight outermost electrons in chemical reactions," that is better to understand without having your mouse hover over the wikilink (something you cannot do on a smartphone or especially if you print this out). By the way, is it really going to lose all eight electrons, i.e. form 126⁸⁺ ions in compounds bound by ionic bonds? As far as I remember, no element known so far does that.

Done Rewrote similarly to suggestion with a direct mention of ionization energy.

Well, that's good, of course, but the question regarding ionic bonds remains. The ionization energy is the energy you need to remove an electron from the atom completely. In compounds, that corresponds to ionic bonds. In contrast, covalent bonds are not related to ionization; these are couplings of two electrons of two different atoms. Presumably the pair would shift away a little bit from the metallic element, but not entirely. Higher oxidation states such as +7 and +8 even in metallic elements are usually formed in compounds bound by covalent bonds, for instance, osmium tetroxide or rhenium heptafluoride. Thus whatever the ionization energies of Os and Re are, it doesn't really matter in the context of Os(VIII) and Re(VII) chemistry because these compounds don't feature Os⁸⁺ or Re⁷⁺ ions. So my question remains. Is 126 expected to form 126⁸⁺ ions in compounds? If you can confirm that, please say so explicitly. If not, don't link 126(VIII) to low ionization energies.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely clear from the articles I read. All I found was a mention of 126_F6 possibly being ionic in doi:10.1002/anie.201701609, though that is not entirely clear as it only refers to a shift from ionic to covalent from 125 to 129. As such, I rephrased it without mentioning ionization energy to hopefully avoid confusion. ComplexRational (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This predicted overlap of orbitals and uncertainty in order of filling, especially for f and g orbitals, renders predictions of chemical and atomic properties of these elements very difficult. -- you haven't mentioned a word about the overlap, so the word "this" doesn't sound right. But you rephrase this instead to something like "It is expected that energy levels for 8p, 7d, and especially 6f and 5g orbitals will overlap, which renders predictions of chemical and atomic properties of these elements very difficult."

Done As there was a mention of overlap in the second sentence, I merged it with the rewritten component as you suggested.

It may also be possible for unbihexium to exhibit the +1 oxidation state and form a stable monofluoride UbhF -- I am doubtful about this. From the reading of the source I understood the author rather explored the type of bonding in this diatomic gas-phase molecule. This is not enough to claim a stable monofluoride. Maybe a multitude of these molecules would disproportionate to, say, 126 and 126F₂?

I'm not sure about this one. Ref 16 says that the 126F molecule will be bound, and if I am reading correctly, with quite a high dissociation energy. It technically doesn't mention oxidation states or disproportionation, and focuses more on the structure of the bond. I see your argument, though I don't know how to clarify this or if such a claim should be removed altogether (in which case, a part of Extended periodic table#Superactinides will also need a review).

The best thing to do is then to focus on the very thing the work focuses on. Say something like "Calculations show that bonding in a diatomic 126F molecule will be provided by a 5g electron of 126, this marking the element as one where g-electrons should actively participate in bonding."--R8R (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded with a focus on this finding.

This, along with possible overlap and hybridization of orbitals in the superactinide series, may also lead to some novel chemical properties unknown in any lighter elements. -- this is not exactly what you say in the body. You never mentioned hybridization; also, you haven't mentioned any novel properties, what would those be? I tend to think that electronic configurations of ions alone do not count as properties. It would be fair to say instead something like, "Apart from this, the element is predicted to display overlap in energy levels between 5g, 6f, 7d, and 8p atomic orbitals, which complicates prediction on properties of the element." This sounds like a good last sentence for the lead to me.--R8R (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Changed wording to be more reflective of the body based on this suggestion.

Responded to comments. ComplexRational (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

actinide homologs -- more WP:SEAOFBLUE

Done and I didn't realize that actinide was linked in an earlier section, now fixed. ComplexRational (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: I also added an image to § Nuclear stability and isotopes, as it highlights several important properties discussed in the text. ComplexRational (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine to me. The addition of the graph is great, really. My last provision would be to explicitly mention who produced your graph (see Tennessine#Nuclear stability and isotopes for an example), and we're good to go into the article space.--R8R (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I prepared it for a move and now am waiting for an admin to speedily delete the old redirect (G6) and complete the move. ComplexRational (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: It's now in mainspace. Thank you for giving these comments and helping to publish the articles. When will we start on our next big project - history of the periodic table? ComplexRational (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pleasure was all mine. As for history of the periodic table, I have some minor short-term goals that I'd like to complete first (see User:R8R/To do) and as soon as that's been dealt with, I could start. In the meantime, I could share some ideas I've had about that article on its talk page if you'd like. I'd also recommend reading history of aluminium for some ideas of the flow of the story---I will describe the basics of what needs to be done anyway, but you could see what the result would look like.--R8R (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]