"JessT" wrote:
>
>  "The s block is undivided. The p block is divided into subblocks of 2 and 4
elements in sequence. The d block is divided into 4 and 6 elements, and the f
block is subdivided into 6 and 8 elements."
>

Just look at the image of "even component matrix" generated by splitting Pascal
Triangle that I recently posted on this blog (05/29/2010). First line of that
matrix reads: 0, 2, -2, 4, -4, 6, -6, 8. Coincidence?

Valery.

So what do you think the physical interpretation is? Waste-not, want-not? Use
everything? As they say, 'Who ordered that?'.

Jess Tauber

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "Valery" <orahct@...> wrote:
>
> "JessT" wrote:
> >
> >  "The s block is undivided. The p block is divided into subblocks of 2 and 4
elements in sequence. The d block is divided into 4 and 6 elements, and the f
block is subdivided into 6 and 8 elements."
> >
>
> Just look at the image of "even component matrix" generated by splitting
Pascal Triangle that I recently posted on this blog (05/29/2010). First line of
that matrix reads: 0, 2, -2, 4, -4, 6, -6, 8. Coincidence?
>
> Valery.
>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100630132852.htm

Hide your stuff inside uranium! Or not.....

Jess Tauber

Hi Jess and Val.
I have been corresponding with Maurice Kibler (in France) some time ago. He is
associated with the Frech Atomic Agency and he has been very encouraging and
helpful.
He co-wrote an interesting paper called "The Periodic Table in Flatland"
It is a deliberate over simplification of the periodic table to discern
prominent characteristics.
Dr. Kibler is an expert on nuclear and chemical physics.
I encourage you to contact him and invite him to participate in our group.
Regards
Richard Kingstone

I did hear back from Dr. Kibler a few days ago, and hope to get him involved.
Thanks.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <chemguy777@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jess and Val.
> I have been corresponding with Maurice Kibler (in France) some time ago. He is
associated with the Frech Atomic Agency and he has been very encouraging and
helpful.
> He co-wrote an interesting paper called "The Periodic Table in Flatland"
> It is a deliberate over simplification of the periodic table to discern
prominent characteristics.
> Dr. Kibler is an expert on nuclear and chemical physics.
> I encourage you to contact him and invite him to participate in our group.
> Regards
> Richard Kingstone
>

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/proton-smaller-than-thought-100707.html

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

Just on a whim I was trying out different numerical combinations, when I
suddenly noticed an odd match. Don't remember if someone mentioned this to me
earlier.

(120xPhi)/(sqrt(120xPi)) = 10.000076  Not an exact ratio, but very mysteriously
close nonetheless.

Why 120, yet again? As for the remainder, is this due to some sequence repeater,
as we've seen in the series defined by combinations of Pascal numbers?

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

Last night I read, on the newsfeeds, a piece describing research on
metalloproteins in extremophile archaea, a new method capable of scanning for
all metals utilized in an organism simultaneously. One of the stories can be
found at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100719142446.htm

I wrote off to the folks in the Georgia lab, and got a response this morning.

As some of you may know, life does not use all elements in the periodic table.
There are certain trends, though. f-block elements are unknown, in the d-block
life pretty much uses only 3d, with the exception of Mo and W under Cr. The
p-block, minus the nobles, uses only those elements above and to the right of
the semimetal line. The s-block is odd here, since He,Li,Be aren't used, but
heavier alkali metals and alkaline earths can substitute for the quartet of
Na,Mg,K,Ca.

The research effort above found that in these thermophiles there were
cumulations of uranium and lead, as well as molybdenum and tungsten.

The latter were already known from earlier studies- I've learned from Wikipedia
that in certain cases Mo and W can substitute for Cr in enzymes, while in other
cases the enzymes seem to prefer dedicated use of these species.

The uranium connection is curious, but some of you may have already surmised
that it shares, with Cr,Mo, and W, fourth group status, despite being in a
different block. The relationship is part of the Early Actinide kinship. It
makes me wonder whether the enzymes that can take the d-block group can take U
instead (though again enzymes might have specialized to take U).

Extremophile microbes are of course so-named because they are often found in
extreme environmental conditions of molarity (salinity, pH), temperature,
pressure, etc. Under extreme temperature any atoms will be jostling about at
much higher rates than at lower ones. In such conditions heavier species with
otherwise similar chemical behaviors might be good choices for substitution, to
tone rates down a bit. In fact, under normal conditions, heavier species are
often toxic because of just this. This is why drinking too much deuterated water
will kill you (though we are talking isotopes here instead).

On isotopes, by the way, it is well known that living processes are known
generally to filter out D in favor of H. At least 'normal' life. I don't know if
any studies have been done on extremophiles. Perhaps some of them prefer D. It
would be fascinating to know if the environmental conditions organism favor
alter their internal makeup of chosen atomic and isotopic species. We already
know that this does in fact factor into the bulk genetic coding, in terms of AT
vs. GC pairs in DNA, and in the makeup of RNAs used in diverse functions.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825093253.htm

I suspected that neutrinos (more specifically neutrino flux) might have been
erroneously left out of descriptions of the properties of matter.

Now new observations suggest that changes in measured half-life vary with the
seasons (due to earth's orbital ellipticity), as well as with solar activity
(for example before solar flares erupt on the sun's surface). Any such effect,
coming as it does from deeper in the sun, might have to be ascribed to the
action of solar neutrinos, which can escape through all that huge mass of
material in short time frames, though perhaps due to other particles we haven't
seen yet.

I hope this isn't some sort of practical joke report- it has shades of the first
minutes of the movie '2012'. If true it means the Standard Model in physics is
seriously off from reality (but then we already knew that....).

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

Jess,

I don't think this is a joke but I also don't think that there is
anything about the standard model that is "seriously off". Like all
models, the standard model is a simplification of a system that captures
the essence of the system for particular uses. In that regard I don't
think that anyone who understands the standard model doesn't think that
it is dead-on accurate. Of course the small missing pieces and
deviations from expected values are always importance evidence of
possible refinements of such models that need to be accounted for when
models are pushed to their limits. This is how we went from the flat
earth theory to a spherical model and then to an oblate spheroid. Note
that *all* of those models were correct for most purposes and still are.
None of them are wrong, just some are inadequate for purposes that push
the limits of their predictive ranges for various purposes.

In this case I think the data is fascinating and I'm looking forward to
seeing what more accurate measurements will show and to hearing what
theorists guess are the likely explanations. Neutrinos are certainly a
likely agent, but how theorists think they can cause this effect will
interesting to hear. Note also that this data is very new and it is a
long way from data to information, and eventually to knowledge.

-Melinda

On 8/25/2010 2:16 PM, JessT wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100825093253.htm
>
> I suspected that neutrinos (more specifically neutrino flux) might have been
erroneously left out of descriptions of the properties of matter.
>
> Now new observations suggest that changes in measured half-life vary with the
seasons (due to earth's orbital ellipticity), as well as with solar activity
(for example before solar flares erupt on the sun's surface). Any such effect,
coming as it does from deeper in the sun, might have to be ascribed to the
action of solar neutrinos, which can escape through all that huge mass of
material in short time frames, though perhaps due to other particles we haven't
seen yet.
>
> I hope this isn't some sort of practical joke report- it has shades of the
first minutes of the movie '2012'. If true it means the Standard Model in
physics is seriously off from reality (but then we already knew that....).

I have heard about this couple of years ago, when they first notices such
deviation in decay rates. This is interesting. What kind of error this may
introduce in determining the half lives of radioactive elements and,
consequently age of Earth, etc?

Apparently increased flux of whatever this is represses decay. The cosmological
equivalent of fluoridation. :-)

Good thing, too- imagine if it were the other way round....

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "Valery" <orahct@...> wrote:
>
> I have heard about this couple of years ago, when they first notices such
deviation in decay rates. This is interesting. What kind of error this may
introduce in determining the half lives of radioactive elements and,
consequently age of Earth, etc?
>

I don't think this will impact the general utility of radio-dating
methods since the effect is very small but it could definitely put some
limits on the expected precision of those methods.

-Melinda

On 8/26/2010 8:25 AM, Valery wrote:
> I have heard about this couple of years ago, when they first notices such
deviation in decay rates. This is interesting. What kind of error this may
introduce in determining the half lives of radioactive elements and,
consequently age of Earth, etc?

Not exactly symmetrical, but will have to do.

Here's one for the pot of magic math:

The electrical system of atoms is supposed to break down around atomic number
173. Yet the supposed island of stability for nuclei is around 126.

If one adds these two numbers one gets 299, or 199 (a Lucas number) plus 100 (a
square). Such things often, I find, come in such combinations when relevant to
the periodic system.

173+3 is 176, or 76 (another Lucas number) plus 100 (again).
126-3 is 123, a Lucas number

173-126 is 47, yet ANOTHER Lucas number.

126-5 is 121, a square.
173+5 is 178, which is twice 89, a Fib. number, and f1 position (if not
configuration) in its block.

173+8 is 181, or the sum of 100 and 81, both squares, and 81 the first member of
its p1 block row.
126-8 is 118- note the interesting transposition of the tens and ones digits.
118 is the electronic magic number 18 (also a noble gas) plus a square. It is
also 26 less than 144, 26 being iron (linked to 13Al)- and 126= 100+26. It is
still also 43 less than 169, another square, and 43= unstable Tc.

144, a square AND a Fibonacci number,-126 is 18, an electronic magic number.

173+13 is 186, 100 plus a noble at.no. 86, and 86 is twice 43Tc.
126-13 is 113, 100 plus 13Al, again with 13 with kinship to 26Fe. 113 is also
another block-row starter, p1.

173+21 is 194, or twice 97, which is the sum of 50, an electronic magic number,
and 47, Lucas, while also the sum of 144, Fib. and square, with 50 as well..
126-21 is 105, which I've seen in other mixtures of Fib/Luc numbers- 105 is 89
Fib plus 16 square. It is also 123 Lucas minus 18, magic, noble, and Lucas. Or
144-39, where 39 is 3x13 (rel to Al/Fe, and also is a block-row starter d1 (Y).
126 PLUS 21 is 147, 100+47 again, a Lucas number.
173 MINUS 21 is 152, which is twice 76, a Lucas number, and also the number of
my street address, proving once and for all my intimate involvement with the
matter, literally and figuratively. :-)

I'll leave it here- but note that all the additions and subtractions are
themselves Fib numbers. Will others give similarly tantalizing results?

Jess Tauber

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_(crystal_structure)

Now, look at Al and Pb, both face centered cubic. Down three rows and rightward
one move. All in same block.

Then look at the doublets Fe,Co and Eu, Gd, with sequences of body centered
cubic, and face centered cubic respectively. Here down two rows and one right,
but in different blocks. Way to rationalize the differences?

To the left of Al is Mg, and to the left of Pb is Tl, both hexagonal close
packed. Different blocks.

Is there any regularity to this as a secondary trend underlying the main ones,
more easily visible? Or just isolated instances?

In the lanthanides, note the approximate pattern laterally: a subblock of two,
then a subblock of four, finally a subblock of 8 (this all including Lu). In
each subblock the element immediately to the left of the terminal has a
different packing from the main trend (La, Pm, Yb).

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

Those would be good questuons for prof. Bent. He knows all about secondary and
tertiary relationships.

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "JessT" <phonosemantics@...> wrote:
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_(crystal_structure)
>
> Now, look at Al and Pb, both face centered cubic. Down three rows and
rightward one move. All in same block.
>
> Then look at the doublets Fe,Co and Eu, Gd, with sequences of body centered
cubic, and face centered cubic respectively. Here down two rows and one right,
but in different blocks. Way to rationalize the differences?
>
> To the left of Al is Mg, and to the left of Pb is Tl, both hexagonal close
packed. Different blocks.
>
> Is there any regularity to this as a secondary trend underlying the main ones,
more easily visible? Or just isolated instances?
>
> In the lanthanides, note the approximate pattern laterally: a subblock of two,
then a subblock of four, finally a subblock of 8 (this all including Lu). In
each subblock the element immediately to the left of the terminal has a
different packing from the main trend (La, Pm, Yb).
>
> Jess Tauber
> phonosemantics@...
>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

So maybe different Aufbau anomalies, knight's moves, diagonals, etc? Different
combining ratios for the 'same' elements? Different placements of couplings?

Hmmm- if we travel there in our starship, assuming this is all true, do we keep
our own configuration, or do our atoms shift to the new regime? If the latter,
then its a great way to prevent intergalactic imperialism. Beats a 'Keep Out'
sign.

Jess Tauber

Interesting stuff on Wiki page on the fine-structure constant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant

Down near the bottom of the Wiki article note the numerals 29 and 137- grist for
the numerology mill.

29 is a Lucas number, and keeps popping up in a number of places related to the
periodic system. 29 is 11+18, both Lucas numbers and the latter a magic number
as well, half (36) and double (9) a square.

137 not so much- but a little derivation might be called for. 137+123=260. 260
is a multiple of 13, which also shows up a lot, and 123 is another Lucas number.
260+29, Lucas, is 289, square.

137+144, square of 12 and a Fib. number, is 181, equal 100+81, both squares.
169, square of 13, minus 137, is 32, an electronic magic number and both half
(64) and double (16) a square. 137-16, a square, is 121, a square. 137 is 100, a
square, plus 37, half a knight's move number (74), if not a square.

137-81, a square, is 56, the tetrahedral number. 225, a square, minus 137, is
188, which is 4x47, 47 being a Lucas number.

256, a square, minus 137, is 119, which is the difference between 144 and 25,
both squares and 144 Fib.

Finally (there may be more, I just don't have the time to look): 289, a square,
minus 137, is 152, twice 76, a Lucas number. 29+137=166, not itself a Lucas
number, but if you add 123 you get 289, which is 200+89, a Fibonacci number.


Jess Tauber

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm
So maybe different Aufbau anomalies, knight's moves, diagonals, etc? Different combining ratios for the 'same' elements? Different placements of couplings?
Hmmm- if we travel there in our starship, assuming this is all true, do we keep our own configuration, or do our atoms shift to the new regime? If the latter, then its a great way to prevent intergalactic imperialism. Beats a 'Keep Out' sign.
Jess Tauber 

As a number of you must be aware, shell filling at atomic numbers 114 and 120
are supposed by some theoreticians to be anomalous, due to spin-orbit coupling.

If this is linked to the spin-orbit coupling responsible for the 'inert pair'
effect, leading to the Knight's Move kinship, then one can see these two
elements as really being analogous to d10 and p6 respectively, which makes sense
in light of experiments that show that 114 not only seems to have noble
character, but also metallic character. Mercury is supposed, because of its
liquidity at room temperature, to have some noble quality.

So the rightward shift of two spaces is preserved.

Some of you may remember my easily demonstrable claim that the Fibonacci numbers
up to 89 pattern as atomic numbers in nonrandom fashion such that the odd Fib
numbers all fall on the s1,p1,d1,f1 system, the first singlet electrons in their
block and row positions, while the even Fib numbers fall on the set of first
doublet positions s2,p4,d6,f8 (though not all are instantiated, it is still a
coherent system).

In the Lucas numbers the odd,odd,even pattern is retained (some begin with 2,
but you still get triplets, if reordered): 1,3,4  7,11,18  29,47,76  123,199,322
etc.

The g-block is taken to begin (if not with g electrons, though) at element 121,
the same sort of position that the odd Fib numbers occupy. However, 123, a Lucas
number, is two spaces to the right. One might easily think that if the two step
rightward trend were continued, it would then land on 123, leaving a Lucas
number in the first doublet position, if things work this way.

29 and 47, copper and silver respectively, don't seem to fall on relevant first
singlet or doublet positions. They are however two steps BEHIND first p-block
singlets, and 29 and 47 ARE odd Lucas numbers- is there some sort of directional
offset alternation going on here? 29 and 47 are in the same group. And they also
have Aufbau anomalies, rearranging things so they do have filled d-orbitals at
the expense of the s-block. In this way they are HYBRIDS (not hybridized..).
That is, they have HALF FILLED s-orbitals, but FILLED d-orbitals.

This is most interesting- Most of the Lucas numbered elements seem to prefer
half and full orbitals (opposite the trend for Fib numbers that like the first
members better): 2,1,3,4 trivially for s-block where all members are either
first members or half and full orbitals simultaneously, then 7 as half-filled,
11 half-filled, 18 filled p-orbitals, then again 29 and 47 BOTH half (s) and
wholly (d) filled.

76Os breaks the pattern, as a first member doublet in keeping with the Fib
pattern instead. It is the last Lucas number lower than 120. Is this possibly
significant? On the other hand, Os is said to have some qualities in common with
the noble gases, that is, here the fact that Os is d6 gives some parallel with
p6. Another ambivalence in the interpretation?

What about 89Ac for the Fib numbers, again last before 120- is its own
configurational shift relevant here? In other words, can internal rearrangements
be rationalized according to Lucas and Fibonacci patterning? There are many
other Phi-convergent series more derived than Fib, which appears to be the
simplest.

In my tetrahedral periodic system all the Fib numbers fall along the faces of
the bisectional cuts that create two parts of the tetrahedron at right angles,
and reflected to each other- these cuts being at 45 degrees to the edges. The
Lucas numbers on the other hand are all on bisections that are perpendicular to
the edges. That is, looking from above an edge of the tetrahedron, the Fib cuts
are like an x, while the Lucas cuts are like a +. How do the other
Phi-convergent series pattern?

Anyway, just wanted to let you folks know that more is being found here. You've
got eyes and hands- have any of you noticed any other relevant math? Thanks.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

On 123. In my last posting I mentioned how, if one carried over the two right
step shift into the g-block 123 would be equivalent to the beginning of the
block, if one imagined that 121 and 122 were somehow s-like, since there are no
true s electrons at 119 and 120, where 120 acts like a noble gas after the
noble/metallic 114.

But Lucas numbers prefer to be at half or full orbital positions, or their
derived equivalents (as with 29 and 47 with Aufbau internal electron
reconfiguration giving both half filled s and full d, or with d6 76Os acting
like a p6 noble gas in some cases).

It just occurred to me that one usually adds the previous s electrons to make
full subshells (why the traditional PT has the s elements on the left). But
there are no true s-electrons in the s-block at 119, 120.

Instead the 6 electrons from 115-120 act like a shifted p block, if the theory
is correct (we won't know for a bit if this is right at all). So the g-block has
to grab what it can. Since it can't grab a pair of s-electrons, might it be
forced to deal instead with the shifted p-6 system?

The g-block is 18 elements across, so 18 full, 9 half filled. Lucas number 123
has three g-block electrons. If you add the previous 6 you DO get 9, which is
half filled g count. Derived, and early, but legitimate? How much else is hidden
here?

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

I was reading online Linus Pauling's notebooks (see
http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/rnb/), and was particularly
interested in sections dealing with the nuclear magic numbers.

Two that don't appear in usual lists are his 'weak' magic numbers 88 and 152.

88 of course is an alkaline earth number, but not a Pascal tetrahedral number.
152 shows up in my modified system, where inert pair effects start mucking with
the mapping of Fib and Lucas numbers.

88 is 2x44, the atomic number of Ru, and 144-100, where 144 is square and Fib,
and 152 is 2x76, the atomic number of Os, and a Lucas number. You may recall
that Ru and Os are part of the same group in the PT, and are the only two
elements other than 54Xe that can take the max. +8 oxidation state.

But there are also some other interesting things here: 152-88=64, a square. And
88+32=120; 152-32 is also 120. There is a pattern. Obviously 32 is an electronic
magic number (and the nuclear magic numbers are based on these same ones, by
combinations of offset series after spin-based splitting of sets). But instead
of differences of 32 affecting only two periods (as with the electronic system),
here it can be applied across the entire series apparently: 184,152,120,88,56,24
(where 24Cr is the first aufbau anomaly). 184 and 120 are 'strong' nuclear magic
numbers (the latter predicted for protons only). Is there some sort of
'every-other' effect??

I've found that other electronic magic numbers can also be 'held' constant and
applied this way, which is rather odd. Why should this work at all?

PS: I got my paperwork back from the USPTO today- my new model is now 'patent
pending'.

Jess Tauber
phonosemantics@...

May I direct you to this new paper
<http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~pyykko/pekka/PT.pdf>  by Pekka Pyykko, Department
of Chemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland, which was posted only recently on
the internet, and may I ask you to e-mail it to all our members for study and
comments. Thanks.

With Best Regards,


Jeries A. Rihani

Thanks for this- very interesting. I wonder whether any of these elements,
however, can exist in the real world. I'd been in touch recently with Prof.
Pyykko- he had pointed me to a link to his much earlier review paper.

Jess Tauber

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "rihanij" <rihanij@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> May I direct you to this new paper
<http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~pyykko/pekka/PT.pdf>  by Pekka Pyykko, Department
of Chemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland, which was posted only recently on
the internet, and may I ask you to e-mail it to all our members for study and
comments. Thanks.
>
> With Best Regards,
>
>
> Jeries A. Rihani
>

Good exercise in extrapolation. How is it related to reality? Elements 139 and
140 fitted between 164 and 169 would not make Mendeleev happy.

Old rule of constructing periodic table on a basis of chemical properties will
not work in case of large values of atomic numbers, simply because such
properties, in many cases, can not be determined. Here comes need for electron
configurations, which played important role for fitting transition and rear
earth elements into the system. However, things are not so simple because of
such odd balls as Cu and Cr, for example.

I concluded some time ago that Periodic Table should not be based on description
of position of last electron added. Instead, it should be based only on two
parameters: atomic number Z and maximum value of n+l for each particular
element. Periodic table based on this simple rule is completely regular, it
reflects primary kinships accurately and retains all groups of elements in
reasonable order.

Valery Tsimmerman.


--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "JessT" <phonosemantics@...> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for this- very interesting. I wonder whether any of these elements,
however, can exist in the real world. I'd been in touch recently with Prof.
Pyykko- he had pointed me to a link to his much earlier review paper.
>
> Jess Tauber
>
> --- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "rihanij" <rihanij@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > May I direct you to this new paper
<http://www.chem.helsinki.fi/~pyykko/pekka/PT.pdf>  by Pekka Pyykko, Department
of Chemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland, which was posted only recently on
the internet, and may I ask you to e-mail it to all our members for study and
comments. Thanks.
> >
> > With Best Regards,
> >
> >
> > Jeries A. Rihani
> >
>

How about extrapolation? On one hand author of the article conducted extensive
Dirac-Fock calculations and extended periodic table beyond element 118.

Looking at this extended layout one can conclude that after element Ubn (120)
everything goes haywire. Perhaps, it is just another indication that the
Periodic Table stops at 120.

Also, look at last member 2nd group. It should be occupied by element 170,
according to the tetrahedral number rule that was described by Jess in his
message No. 40. All other members of 2nd group comply with this rule. Therefore,
by extrapolation it should be element 170.

What extrapolation is correct? The one that is based on Dirac-Fock calculations
or the one that is based on tetrahedral numbers?

I like the second one.

Valery

On the other hand things start to go haywire already before element 120, it
would seem. And, for those of you into pattern pressure, it looks as if
left-hand square numbers within half rows (at the Fib-preferred positions) are
doing something:

For the *expected* system, the 5g block begins at 121 for sq11, and then much
later 9s at 169, sq13. I don't know if 144 means anything- Pyykko says 144-154
finishes off the 6f row, but it doesn't have enough elements- and if 8p1/2 is at
139-140, we would expect 141 to start off the 6f row, that is unless 6f actually
begins in the 5g block, along with possibly also 7d. A mess. Other squares at
left half row margins are: 81, 64, 49.

Do we really know for sure that the elements from 104 to 113 have normal
electronic configurations? Remember that the neutral atomic configuration
doesn't necessarily reflect how the atom behaves in combination. Anyway not
enough pieces yet in the box to figure out how this particular jigsaw puzzle
looks when completed.

Jess Tauber

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "Valery" <orahct@...> wrote:
>
>
> How about extrapolation? On one hand author of the article conducted extensive
Dirac-Fock calculations and extended periodic table beyond element 118.
>
> Looking at this extended layout one can conclude that after element Ubn (120)
everything goes haywire. Perhaps, it is just another indication that the
Periodic Table stops at 120.
>
> Also, look at last member 2nd group. It should be occupied by element 170,
according to the tetrahedral number rule that was described by Jess in his
message No. 40. All other members of 2nd group comply with this rule. Therefore,
by extrapolation it should be element 170.
>
> What extrapolation is correct? The one that is based on Dirac-Fock
calculations or the one that is based on tetrahedral numbers?
>
> I like the second one.
>
> Valery
>

How La can be in f-block when it has no f-electrons in ground state. Not a
single f-electron! How about placement of He in conventional PT? What is it
doing in p-block with no p-electrons?

The bottom line is: for consistency sake, Periodic Table should neither be based
on position of electrons within atoms, nor on properties. Again, position of
elements shall be dictated only by Z and n+l, where n+l change marks end of
period and end of periods lined up.

Janet was right. I can see nothing else that would be more clear basis for the
periodic system. Without Z/n+l rule, the whole periodicity concept goes haywire.

V.T.

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "JessT" <phonosemantics@...> wrote:
>
> On the other hand things start to go haywire already before element 120, it
would seem. And, for those of you into pattern pressure, it looks as if
left-hand square numbers within half rows (at the Fib-preferred positions) are
doing something:
>
> For the *expected* system, the 5g block begins at 121 for sq11, and then much
later 9s at 169, sq13. I don't know if 144 means anything- Pyykko says 144-154
finishes off the 6f row, but it doesn't have enough elements- and if 8p1/2 is at
139-140, we would expect 141 to start off the 6f row, that is unless 6f actually
begins in the 5g block, along with possibly also 7d. A mess. Other squares at
left half row margins are: 81, 64, 49.
>
> Do we really know for sure that the elements from 104 to 113 have normal
electronic configurations? Remember that the neutral atomic configuration
doesn't necessarily reflect how the atom behaves in combination. Anyway not
enough pieces yet in the box to figure out how this particular jigsaw puzzle
looks when completed.
>
> Jess Tauber
>
> --- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "Valery" <orahct@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > How about extrapolation? On one hand author of the article conducted
extensive Dirac-Fock calculations and extended periodic table beyond element
118.
> >
> > Looking at this extended layout one can conclude that after element Ubn
(120) everything goes haywire. Perhaps, it is just another indication that the
Periodic Table stops at 120.
> >
> > Also, look at last member 2nd group. It should be occupied by element 170,
according to the tetrahedral number rule that was described by Jess in his
message No. 40. All other members of 2nd group comply with this rule. Therefore,
by extrapolation it should be element 170.
> >
> > What extrapolation is correct? The one that is based on Dirac-Fock
calculations or the one that is based on tetrahedral numbers?
> >
> > I like the second one.
> >
> > Valery
> >
>

In linguistics, there is a well-known phenomenon of 'metathesis', where part of
some word becomes switched positionally with the rest, with other nonaffixal
material intervening (many languages have 'infixes', such as those of the
Semitic family, like Arabic and Hebrew)- and at time such intervening material
is itself split an parts switched. So forms A and B, which are compounded and
*should* be AB, for example, become A' and A" parts, an B' and B" parts, then
finally arranged as A'B'A"B". This happens in Siouan languages, such as Lakota
(as seen in the film Dances with Wolves). If it happened in English, a word like
'cowboy' might end up as 'cobwoy'. Some historical linguistics believe
'butterfly' came from 'flutterby'.

Splitting by spin, with unusual filling orders, seems similar, in ways, to me. I
believe similar things happen quite often in the genome. Where else?

The explanation for languages is usually phonological- the prevailing prosodic
system involving intonation and stress among other features is given base forms
that are fine alone, but in combination for some reason create a tension that
can be resolved by the reordering of elements of those words. I don't know if
this type of thing happens with genomic elements, but tension is part of the
picture, in literal terms.

Is there an analogue within the periodic system? Or is it all just shifting
energy levels? Is there some kind of systemic pattern pressure we aren't yet
aware of? I've offered my hypotheses concerning squares, Lucas, Fib numbers and
their combinations, which show up far more often than you would expect. Does
this have some connection more directly to Pascal math?

Jess Tauber

--- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "Valery" <orahct@...> wrote:
>
> How La can be in f-block when it has no f-electrons in ground state. Not a
single f-electron! How about placement of He in conventional PT? What is it
doing in p-block with no p-electrons?
>
> The bottom line is: for consistency sake, Periodic Table should neither be
based on position of electrons within atoms, nor on properties. Again, position
of elements shall be dictated only by Z and n+l, where n+l change marks end of
period and end of periods lined up.
>
> Janet was right. I can see nothing else that would be more clear basis for the
periodic system. Without Z/n+l rule, the whole periodicity concept goes haywire.
>
> V.T.
>
> --- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "JessT" <phonosemantics@> wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand things start to go haywire already before element 120, it
would seem. And, for those of you into pattern pressure, it looks as if
left-hand square numbers within half rows (at the Fib-preferred positions) are
doing something:
> >
> > For the *expected* system, the 5g block begins at 121 for sq11, and then
much later 9s at 169, sq13. I don't know if 144 means anything- Pyykko says
144-154 finishes off the 6f row, but it doesn't have enough elements- and if
8p1/2 is at 139-140, we would expect 141 to start off the 6f row, that is unless
6f actually begins in the 5g block, along with possibly also 7d. A mess. Other
squares at left half row margins are: 81, 64, 49.
> >
> > Do we really know for sure that the elements from 104 to 113 have normal
electronic configurations? Remember that the neutral atomic configuration
doesn't necessarily reflect how the atom behaves in combination. Anyway not
enough pieces yet in the box to figure out how this particular jigsaw puzzle
looks when completed.
> >
> > Jess Tauber
> >
> > --- In tetrahedronT3@yahoogroups.com, "Valery" <orahct@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > How about extrapolation? On one hand author of the article conducted
extensive Dirac-Fock calculations and extended periodic table beyond element
118.
> > >
> > > Looking at this extended layout one can conclude that after element Ubn
(120) everything goes haywire. Perhaps, it is just another indication that the
Periodic Table stops at 120.
> > >
> > > Also, look at last member 2nd group. It should be occupied by element 170,
according to the tetrahedral number rule that was described by Jess in his
message No. 40. All other members of 2nd group comply with this rule. Therefore,
by extrapolation it should be element 170.
> > >
> > > What extrapolation is correct? The one that is based on Dirac-Fock
calculations or the one that is based on tetrahedral numbers?
> > >
> > > I like the second one.
> > >
> > > Valery
> > >
> >
>