Talk:3242: Aperiodic Table
And the award for turning the periodic table into Chutes and Ladders goes to... 18:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, I was first, I just took a while explaining it. -- Teddy (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2026 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
FIRST! also how has this not been explained? explain it! 2605:59c8:22e3:3e14:2583:32c8:f9de:2888 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2026 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Well, you weren't first, were you. Moved you to chronologically after the actual first comment here. HTH, HAND. 81.179.199.253 20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Hey guys, don't forget to sign your comments with 4 tildes. 18:54, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hmm, something seems to be wrong with the signature code. It's putting in the timestamp, but not the username. Barmar (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- And now the username is back! Barmar (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- If you sign with "~~~~~" (five tildes), you get just "20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)" (for this edit, note that it is identical to the timestamp this edit's end-signature of four tildes will have given). You/whoever else might have accidentally done that. 81.179.199.253 20:26, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- And now the username is back! Barmar (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
The first paragraph currently ends with "and the elements increase in size when reading it left-to-right and top-to-bottom (like a book)." This is incorrect. Actually, they do get larger going down a column, but they get smaller going left to right along a row. This causes a staircase effect. The short explanation is that as you add protons, they pull in the electron cloud more tightly, making the atom smaller, but when you add an electron in a new primary energy level, it's enough larger to overcome the effect of the additional protons resulting in a larger atom. This page has a more complete explanation. So, should we just remove the claim that the atoms get larger in size? We could make it accurate, but I'm not sure how to phrase it in a way which actually adds to the explanation. Mootstrap (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
- Increase in 'size' is differently interpretable. The atomic number itself increases. The typical nucleon count/atomic weight (almost identically) tends to rise (give or take choice of isotopic variation), and the nucleus itself will therefore be larger by the same degree (if not slightly more, for the same reason as the electron shells/orbitals get pulled inwards a bit for any given model) if that's something that you care to measure.
- Maybe just a different word, to replace the ambiguous "size". Although I'm also personally not enamoured of the "like a book" bit, which seems to be trying to just say that the table isn't unusually ordered, like it potentially could have been (e.g. a bottom-up version). 81.179.199.253 21:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
The "they don't have enough enrichment in their enclosures" is a suggestion that scientists are being treated as zoo animals, and unless they have enough toys to play with they start coming up with strange concepts. -- Dtgriscom (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
It should be noted that element 81 in the table is incorrectly labeled “Ti” (as in titanium) instead of “Tl” (Thallium) Vekkizunt (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
