Nothing was removed. By me at least

The periodic table is not complete, it is just the elements we have found, or made. There is nothing preventing us from adding another row to the table if we make more elements. In fact we have done this twice already which is why there is the strange insert into the table.

The problem is that elements with higher atomic numbers then uranium is not found in nature because they are highly radioactive. Any elements formed in supernova events will have deteriorated by the time it formed into planets. This is as I recall because the optimal number of gluons for the mixture of protons and neutrons is not a whole number and therefore never achievable.

But if you pay attention this does not mean that there is a second area of stable elements further down in the periodic table of elements. In fact there might be stable isotopes of some of the last elements we have made. We have not found any of them on Earth, or by looking elsewhere in the universe. However this does not mean such an element does not exist. It is possible that in the optimal conditions in a supernova some of these elements might be formed. And these might then become part of a globular cluster and form ore vains in planets in these. It is highly unlikely but still theoretically possible.

What is more likely is that we might find planets rich in elements that we desire. It can be as simple as iron, coal, silica or aluminium, but might also be nickel, lithium or chrome. In literature it is not important exactly which element it is so they just call in unobtainium partly as a placeholder and partly as an in-joke.

[removed]

New elements are unlikely. We've already filled the periodic table for everything with 118 protons and below. As far as we can tell all the heavy elements are crazy unstable so its unlikely you could craft anything useful out of them. We haven't made anything over 100 that has a half life over a year so whatever you create will be extremely radioactive and change its properties very quickly

That said, new compounds/alloys/chemicals are found/created/designed fairly regularly. Alloys of steel with various quantities of nickel, chromium, molybdenum, and other metals are created all the time with slight to significant changes in the properties either making it harder or more flexible or more durable or better tensile strength or more corrosion resistance

There are a ton of different ways to create crystal structures out of atoms, we haven't created anywhere near most of them yet so there are still some oddballs out there with fun properties

I know it wasn't your intention, just trying to give you some insight on the downvotes. People here will read punctuation before they read the words.

So how much memory does the calculator need to store all the squares in a table?

An ambassador is a diplomat and not all diplomats are ambassadors, yes. But the distinction has very little to do with length of appointment.

An ambassador is the head of a diplomatic mission who is the representative of his/her head of state (President, Prime Minister, King etc.). Ambassadors may have spent many years working for the ministry of foreign affairs (career ambassadors) or they may just be friends or supporters of the head of state (political appointees).

However, ambassador can also be simply a rank or title. Ambassadors-at-large are also diplomats, but not head of a diplomatic mission. Former ambassadors may keep the title even after their assignment is complete.

Because an ambassador is the representative of the head of state, their assignment may end when the head of state changes - this is apparent in the US when a new president is elected, when political appointee ambassadors are largely replaced. Their appointment may end up being very short.

A political appointee ambassador, almost by definition, has not been/will not be a diplomat for long. A career ambassador has very likely been a diplomat for many years, rising the ranks. Still, another diplomat may have served just as long or longer, but didn't get the same promotions so isn't an ambassador.

If we're talking about theory, it's not just possible but certain that there are more elements than those listed on the periodic table. An element is defined by the number of protons in the nucleus. You can theorize a new element with 69420 protons, and that's that.

What's harder is having that new element actually exist. Elements only get on the periodic table if we can actually observe them existing. Since the middle of the last century, physicists have known how to slam atoms into each other to create heavier elements. Any element heavier than uranium does not occur naturally on Earth and has to be created in a lab. We have created several elements this way.

There is therefore recent precedent for expanding the periodic table. Scientists are actively working on expanding it further, but it is difficult work. These super-heavy elements are very unstable, and creating them requires a lot of time, energy, and expensive equipment. On top of that, the process is fundamentally random, so each try has only a small chance of success.

No - but I can explain some terms further. ELI5 isn't a *literal* requirement here - 5 year olds don't generally have the language yet to understand thermodynamics.

That said - thermal energy is just a fancy name for heat - and thermals is me making up a unit of measure for the amount of heat.

You have to measure heat differently from temperature. Temperature tells you how hot a substance is but different substances hold different levels of heat. (Strictly speaking the correct term is Joules but I called them Thermals because I was making up numbers and didn't want to make you think my numbers were anywhere close to correct).

The measurement of heat capacity is actually based on joules of energy per kilogram per degree Kelvin but in simpler terms it means if you have a pound of water and a pound of air (yes, air has weight) both can be the same temp but the water will hold more than 4 times the amount of actual heat energy than the air. What happens when the amount of heat hits its limit? The temperature goes up.

Looking at it another way - if you have a pound of air and a pound of water - but the water is at 0F and the air is at 10F - if you moved ALL the heat from the air into the water, the water would only go up to just under 2.5F, not 10F - because water can absorb so much more heat than air. Same amount of energy but in different materials - so less temperature change in the denser material.

Now in reality temperature won't move 100% from one to the other - instead they'll reach a balance where the temperatures equalize - which will still work out to about 2 deg F for both the air and the water since the water will absorb most but not all the heat.

If that doesn't clarify please lmk what you need help with, happy to keep trying to come up with examples. :)

Amazing! Thanks a lot!

At 35kV?

According to this (https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7401?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop), GMail deletes emails from your account that have been in your Trash folder for 30 days, though you can manually empty that Trash folder earlier than that, too.

Gmail moves it to the "Trash folder." Depending on your settings, those emails will completely be gone after 30 days. You can manually go in and get rid of them completely at any time. Or, you can recover them by going to the "Trash" folder and moving them to your "Inbox."

Such Devastation

>Yes but not all in series. For 25000 AA batteries that would give you about 37kV, you probably don't want/need so much.

Tesla packs are 100Kw.

Elements are defined by the number of protons they have, and nuclei become very unstable when they get too large, say over a hundred protons.

"New elements" would be possible under different physics, maybe; otherwise, there aren't really any "new elements."

Does G-mail fully delete it?

[removed]

Because there would be way too much wiring, it would increase the potential points of failure and would make multiplexing systems a nightmare. A battery is supposed to last as long as the vehicle -same principle as your smartphone.

Thank you, that makes it even more clear.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Loaded questions are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. A loaded question, by definition, presumes that something must be true in order for the question to stand.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

I have two IRS agents in my family. If you think they won't look at supporting documentation if they don't think the numbers make sense, you are sorely mistaken.

Edit: They blocked me so I can't respond, but yes - they will absolutely look at utility bills if they think that cost to serve doesn't line up with the revenues reported.

x < x * x is only true for x>1, but that's not relevant here.

What we do need (for x>0 and y>0): if x < y then y/x > 1 or equivalently y^2 / x > y. Same for the other direction, if x > y then y^2 / x < y. Here y is the square root we are looking for. This inequality makes sure one of our numbers is always too small while the other one is too large, i.e. the square root is in between.

[removed]

Yes. We continue to make new elements on the heavy side of the periodic table. They are very unstable and last for very short periods of time. Some people theorise that there might be a group of very heavy elements that are stable and can exist for longer than a few seconds. This theoretical part of the periodic table is called "the island of stability."