Talk:Electron shell

Vanadium & Chromium

Why the gap between vanadium & chromium: i.e. why isn't chromium 2,8,12,2?

Is this worth a mention? Or am I missing something?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the Aufbau principle has exceptions as mentioned in the article, and this is one of them. Double sharp (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Subshells

Please check the reference concerning subshell labeling: "There is an association between the values of ℓ = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... and the letters s, p, d, f, g, h, j*, k, l, ... The first four are historical, being a description of the nature of the emission lines from states of that angular momentum type as sharp, principal, diffuse, and fine. The rest of the alphabet is used in sequence, omitting i*." <Jue, T. (2009). "Quantum Mechanic Basic to Biophysical Methods">. Currently the note in the table says "(next in alphabet after f, excluding j*)". --Alexander Lozovsky (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Incnis Mrsi fixed it. DMacks (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Simplified Bohr model using 2 8 8 8 8 .. shells?

What is the name for the simplified Bohr planetary model that says shells only ever go up to 8?

I recall being taught this in a "Chemistry I" textbook in a USA public high school back in the late 1980s. The textbook made no mention of the proper 2 8 18 32 Bohr model, and didn't mention quantum whatsit at all. I thought it was really stupid they were teaching us a farce as fact, that would have to be unlearned and would just cause confusion for real chemistry later. -- DMahalko (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

DMahalko might refer to the octet rule, although it has little to do with Bohr’s ideas. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The principal quantum number and transition metals

The article currently insists that shells are defined by n alone. Then look:

“ The electrons in the outermost occupied shell (or shells) determine the chemical properties of the atom; it is called the valence shell. ”

How many (in plural) “occupied shells”? What namely it is called? For d-elements in periods 4 and 5 we see valence electrons on 4s ∪ 3d and 5s ∪ 4d respectively – the highest two values of n. For f-elements in periods 6 and 7 we see valence electrons on 6s ∪ 5d ∪ 4f and 7s ∪ 6d ∪ 5f respectively – the highest three values of n. And the story does not end here. We see that valence electrons have little respect to n, which determines the energy level only in simplistic one-electron model. Does all sources agree on “paramountcy” of n? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Typography of subshells

Why are they explicitly serif style? DMacks (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I made them serif some years ago. Not important, but absence of any markup increases chances that yet another user comes and makes them italic, which I detest. And is typography a more intriguing topic than the thread immediately above? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, typography is intriguing to me as a nonstandard formatting that has no apparent MOS reason to be non-standard. And its use for a technical symbol suggests that this is a meaningful choice (like all sorts of other symbols that are italics or bold or Blackboard-bold or whatever). I agree that italic is not correct (something that has been discussed on WT:CHEM or a similar page at least once before. DMacks (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a formatting device making ''s'' and <math>s</math> things non-functional. To deter “corrections”, “improvements”, and “typo fixing”. <nowiki> can serve, although it unfortunately is too well-known. I could make a template permitting for {{elconf|2p6}}↦2p⁶ etc. without allowing italic inside. In short, I only oppose any sort of italic, but indifferent for serif/default. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I support DMacks's post @07:59: no reason or need to deviate from standard font. IOW: rm serif style. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Colored grid at § Number of electrons in each shell

It's a nice visual that each successive shell is a new color as an L-shaped addition to a larger square in File:Electron subshels (triangles).png. But why are they added on alternate sides (n=2 on lower-left, n=3 on upper-right, n=4 on lower-left, etc.) rather than building in a consistent direction as in File:Electron subshells.png? As it stands, I had to look for a while to recognize the actual consistent pattern of adding the L-shaped layer. DMacks (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ctac: who created both of these images and added it to article. DMacks (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It is only an artistic concept… @DMacks: upload your conceptual image if you don’t like existing one. Anyway the shape of square doesn’t matter; it might be triangles, 60° rhombuses, or something else. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice that I already did give a link to an alternative (and you will note that I did not make any comment that "square" was a problem). Instead, here we are on talkpage to discuss whether one is better (and also note that I pinged someone who apparently does have an opnion on it). Here on talkpage is a great central/public place to discuss image use in an article. Do you have an actual position on this issue to contribute to this discussion? DMacks (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Electron_subshells.png is better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks: look, by the way, at my new concept. It, expectedly, uses title too, although tooltips are visible only in direct SVG, not after MediaWiki PNG conversion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Neat! Thanks. DMacks (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Just add 4 arrows which = two boxes and also =s I

Flippin hell the wiki us recourceful Mistressxcuties (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

2013 instead of 1913

Cant edit the article but right under the table in the section history there is a mistake where it says 2013 Bohr model instead of 1913. Dagaznau (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting this. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect wording when interpreted literally

One of the opening paragraphs starts with "Each shell can contain only a fixed number of electrons".

This is not explicitly true. The amount of electrons that can be contained by electron shells can vary wildly depending on charge, atomic structure, temperature even, etc.

If this were literally true then the electron shells of every atom would have the same amount of electrons contained in them regardless of any other factor. By logical extension this also implies that all atoms have the same amount of electrons which is obviously false.

I think the prose should be changed to reflect this. It's not that every orbital shell can contain only a fixed number of electrons. Rather, every orbital shell CANNOT contain more than a fixed number of electrons. I'm not good at prose, maybe someone else has a better way to word it? 2600:8800:10A:B100:D8C8:5D0C:14F8:5461 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Science

State the shell rule 182.187.149.189 (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Query re numerical definition of electrons in shells

This bit of text: 'the second shell can hold up to eight (2 + 6) electrons' is ambiguous. The problem is that '(2 + 6)' could be taken to indicate that there are 2 electrons plus 6, total 8. To a reader who is coming new to this knowledge, this, then, must mean that the second shell encompasses the first shell, because ... what other purpose could there be in expressing the numbers that way? But of course that conclusion is incorrect as there are 8 electrons in the second shell alone, plus 2 in the first shell, so that if both shells were to be combined the total electrons would be 10.

The same goes for 'the third shell can hold up to 18 (2 + 6 + 10) and so on'. The '(2 + 6 + 10)' could be taken byh someone learning this information anew to indicate that the third shell includes the first and second shells.

There is, however, a simple solution to the ambiguity. As I can't see what the (2 + 6) and (2 + 6 + 10) relate to, I'd suggest you delete them. Or, if you don't want to do that -- if there is a reason for their presence that escapes me -- then it would be good if you were to explain the purpose of those numbers. 2A0D:3344:111:DF10:7C17:7D11:7ED7:692C (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I took out the parentheticals. It's simple arithmetic of the 2(n^2) formula, and it's explained clearly in a table in the later section. But in the WP:LEDE unexplained layout or not highly clear detail might be best omitted. DMacks (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC)