In the previous page, we began classifying the chemical elements (chemels) trough their various properties. The most general chemel classification (chemclass) is that a chemel can be either stable or unstable.

A stable chemel (stachem) can further be classified as being either active or inactive.
Due to the preservation tendency mark of creation (PT-UMOC), to preserve their stability, stachems must be endowed, from their birth, with a locking mechanism that could be called a chemical lock (chemlock).

The "active" stable chemels are characterized by being open to combine, when in contact with other chemels, into various aggregates or formations, called chemical composites (chemcomps), that appear to exert an aura of saturation and completeness (sac).

.The "inactive" stable chemels, on the other hand, seem to be locked in a dormant, non-reactive state, when in contact with other chemels, appearing of displaying an aura of being already saturated and complete (sac).

.That saturation and completeness (sac) characteristic, that appears to exist and be central to all chemels caught our attention in a most profound way, leading us to recognize

The Seventeen Foundational Universal Recognition Of Nature (17th FURON):  The Universal Principle Of Saturation (TUPOS)

All matter has the natural tendency to become and stay saturated. The saturated matter (satma) is a "closed-in" substance that is inactive and "complete" while the unsaturated matter, called active matter (actma), is a substance that is active and "incomplete", being open to combine with other chemels to form new stable "saturated" combined entities. (If those combined entities are made of the same chemels, they are called molecules; if not, they are called compounds.) Thus, for instance, through the combination of two (2) Oxygen-chemels, we get the Oxygen (O2) molecule while through the combination of two (2) Hydrogen-chemels with one (1) Oxygen-chemel, we get the Water (H2O) compound. ! Remark: It is important to recognize that TUPOS exists because of Downlev --the ultimate physical law of Nature (Uplon) detailed as follows: •  i) Actma is fueled by the ergoleveling process dictated by Downlev and • ii) Satma is protected by Downlev through its objective of existence of not allowing any permanent deviation from its stable state of existence. That protective reach of Downlev is an outreach of the preservation tendency mark of creation (PT-UMOC). Definitions: A saturated chemel (chemSAT) is a chemel that exists in a closed, unresponsive state, that stays unaffected by being in contact with any other chemels, reflecting as such, an aura of saturation and completeness (sac). (By "saturated", in this context, is meant of a chemel not accepting any more electrons.) Remark: There is no guaranty, of course, that a chemel in contact with a chemSAT is not being able to "steal" electrons from it, to form in the end, a compound with it. For that to happen, the “pirate” chemel (pirac) must somehow be able to break the chemSAT's chemlock. An active chemel (chemACT) is a chemel that exists in an open state, ready to react and interlock with some other contacting chemels, to form a "saturated" chemcomp. Thus, we can talk about the two kinds of stachems that exist in Nature: the unresponsive ChemSATs and, the responsive ChemACTs. Both those types of stachems exist because of Downlev.

With that stachem classification behind us, we now continue by examining their presence, if any, in the Periodic Table of Chemels (PETAC).

Are There Any ChemSAT in the Periodic Table of Chemels (PETAC)?

From various experimental data, it was gradually recognized that the Helium group, called the noble gases (nobgas) group, appeared to be the only group that did not react or combine when it was placed in contact with other chemels. Because of that non-reactivity towards other chemels when in contact, it was reasoned that the nobgas group was comprised of chemels that were somehow "full," "complete," or "saturated."
WHAT then, those chemels of the nobgas group had in common, that set them apart, and made them unreactive or unresponsive towards other chemels in contact?
Upon the introduction of Niels Bohr's planetary structural model of the atom (now, abolished), it was reasoned that the outer "planetary" electrons, and only them, were the ones involved in a chemical reaction (chemrec).
As such, it was further reasoned that the outer ring (oring) of electrons must hold the key as to WHY the chemels of the nobgas group stay neutral towards other chemels in contact. Thus, it was conjectured that if the oring is packed to its fullest capacity, i.e., being saturated, then those saturated orings (sators) hold the ticket to their neutrality.

With that understanding, that all orings of nobgases are saturated (being, as such, sators), the next logical question, that would have required an answer for the study of the sators of nobgases, would have been perhaps this one, regarding their sizes:
WERE those sators of the same size for each chemel of nobgases, or do they differ for each member of the nobgas group, and thus differ in their packing capacity?
That question which was never asked, much less answered, can be answered in here through:

The Packing Corollary Of Sators (PACOS)

The packing capacity of a sator is not function of its size.

Proof: This is a direct result springing from TELSAT. Regardless of their sizes, all sators from the nobgas group will contain the same maximum finite (Maxfin) number of packed electrons. QED.

WHAT then that maximum finite (Maxfin) number of packed electrons is for a sator of the nobgas group?

Well, the answer to that, most certainly, could not come from the blueprint of TRUTON presented herein. And that is because that question is not answerable here no more than answering WHY the number 82 (and no other number) is the Maxfin number of protons that a NUC must have in order for its chemel to say nonradioactive.

The natural radioactivity (narad) begins indeed with the chemel 83 in PETAC that is the Bismuth (₈₃Bi). In short, Maxfin 82 corresponding to Lead (₈₂Pb), is not a result emerging from TRUTON, but is one resulted from the experimental data (experda).

As such, that sought Maxfin answer for the nobgas group must come from some other place, specifically from conjectures derived from the study of chemical reactions (chemrecs).

Richard Abegg

In 1904, Richard Abegg, experimenting with the combining properties of Sulfur (₁₆S), noticed that when combined with the Hydrogen (₁H) in obtaining the Hydrogen Sulfite (H₂S) --Sulfur exhibited a lost of two (-2) electrons, but when combined with Oxygen (₈O) and the Hydrogen (₁H) in obtaining Sulfuric Acid (H₂SO₄) -- Sulfur gained six (+6) electrons: two (+2) from the Hydrogen and four (+4) from the Oxygen. As such, the combined absolute range of the Sulfur from the minus 2 to the plus 6 of the two performed chemrecs amounted to the range sum of eight (8).

Gilbert N. Lewis

Irving Langmuir

Stunningly from there, Abegg extrapolated that finding with the Sulfur, for all chemels! The empirical embryonal "Octet Rule" was born now in several stages.
First, with that extrapolation, the so-called "Rule of Eight" was born. Then, in 1916, that empirical rule was picked up by Gilbert N. Lewis in his seminal cubic atom theory calling it, for the first time, the "Abegg's Rule." From there, in 1919, Irving Langmuir, developed his own empirical "octet theory" that eventually become cemented as the "Octet Rule."

Through the "Octet Rule" conjecture, the nobgas group was now understood to have in their orings that saturated value of eight (8) electrons that represented the Maxfin number.

The number of electrons that a ChemACT needs to have for reaching the Octet Rule formation for its oring or ovalon is called its valence. Thus, the valence number (valnu) is a whole number without a sign and, as such, from valnu, we cannot have any indication whether the ChemACT has gained (+) or lost (-) electrons in its oring (ovalon) during its interaction with other chemel. The range of valnu is, as such, from 1 to 7, since 8 is a complete octet.

That limitation with the valnu representation has been eliminated with the introduction of the oxidation number (oxinum) that is a number that keeps track of the electrons in the oring (ovalon) of the chemel and incorporates, as such, both signs:

with the negative (-) sign when there is a gain of the (negative) electrons and, with the positive (+) sign when there is a lost.

Remarks:

(1-7) . . . (±)

1. In the modern language of Chemistry, the Abegg's Rule can be expressed through the concept of valence and expanded into the oxidation state concept that, as noted, differentiate an atom that is an electron grabber that gains electrons (negative valence) from the one, that is an electron loser by losing electrons (positive valence).
2. In the TRUTON lingo, we note that the oring is the ovalon and, that the saturated oring (sator) is the saturated ovalon (satov).

 The Octet Rule conjecture has been paramount for providing the general blueprint of how ChemACTs will react towards other like chemels: that of getting a saturated 8-electron pack into their outer ring --the oring (i.e., into their ovalon), i.e., that of getting a satov modulo the Octet Rule.

The combining capacity of a ChemSAT is therefore (as recognized through the blueprint paved by the Octet Rule) a function of the numbers of the outer electrons, called valence electrons (valELs), that were needed for its ovalon to became saturated i.e., to become a satov. That combining capacity led, as noted, to the concept of valence that was created to show how a chemical bond (chembond) is being formed.

That ChemACTs can unite in creating a chembond through their outer valELs of their respective ovalons, led to the recognition that their unification can be achieved through two, and only two, distinct pathways:

		either through a sharing or trough a capture of the outer valELs, creating, as such,
		either a covalent bond (coB) or a ionic bond (ioB), respectively

Polar Covalent (poco) Bonds By the concomitant influences supplied by two uniting ChemACTs on their commonly shared valence electrons (valELs), energy (as in a pull) is going to be released that will be used in cementing the stability of the chembond. However, different ChemACTs will attract the shared valence electrons (valELs) with different forces. As such, there is an inequality in the amount of the "pull" exerted on its valence electrons valELs by the various chemels. Those (valELs), as such, will experience pulls of various degree of intensity. Thus, to each participating chemel, we can associate a measurement for its tendency to grab or to pull those valELs. If we call electronegativity (ELneg), the measurement of a chemel's strength of that tendency to grab or to pull a valence electron (valELs), then (as recognized and developed in the valence bond theory by Linus Pauling) due to that pull inequality, we can talk about chemels of high ELneg (such as Fluoride, Oxigen, Nitrogen, or Chlorine) or of low ELneg (such as the alkali metals or the alkaline earth metals). All this recognition of different levels of ELneg leads to the unequal sharing of valence electrons (valELs) between chemels, as valELs will be drawn closer to chemels of higher ELneg. A large difference in ELneg of its partnering bonding chemels, leads to a stronger polar (ionic) character of the bond. The higher the value of the ELneg of a chemel is, the more strongly that chemel attracts the shared valence electrons (valELs). As such, chemels with the highest ELneg will be the prime candidates and suspects to become "pirate" chemelc (piracs) when facing the nobgas group. In fact, in 1933, Linus Pauling predicted such a scenario with Fluoride and Oxygen as being the front-runners. Those predictions, such as with Krypton Hexaflouride (KrF6) or with Xenon Hexaflouride (XeF6) were proved to be accurate, indeed. And 1962, Neil Bartlett, was the first to report of the highly oxidizing compound Platinum Hexafluoride (PtF6). He also reported, in the same year, of obtaining the synthesized Xenon Tetrafluoride (XeF4) by exposing a mixture of Xenon (Xe) with Fluorine (F) to a high temperature. After that, the gate was quite open in discovering a plethora of additional nobgases compounds. The nobgas group has lost, as such, its "inert" title, irreversibly. And speaking of gate opening, we may want to note this: Soon after the introduction of the empirical Octet Rule cemented in 1919 by Irving Langmuir, it was recognized that with that rule, it cannot be explained other chemrecs with other chemels from PETAC. As such, two years later, in 1921, Langmuir introduced another empirical rule --the 18-electron rule that was able to explain partially chemrecs involving the stable transition of metal complexes. Once that gate with the empirical rules was wide open, a flood of empirical rules followed with no end in sight. With that, Chemistry has entered now into its murky zone. The Murky Zone of Chemistry (Muzoc) was born...

Linus Pauling

With that succinct and incomplete presentation of the covalent bonds (coBs), we now tend to move towards the other type of chembonds:
   one, at the ionic bonds type

On Ionic Bonds (ioBs)

Ionic bonds (IoBs) were defined as chemical bonds (chembonds) where their valence electrons (valELs) are being transferred (as opposed to being shared). However, during those transfers, the electrons inevitably will be subject to the influence of the two atoms that are being engaged with and, as such, those transferred electrons would encounter a certain degree of a covalent bond (coB), as well. Thus, "pure" ioBs do not really exist in Nature as some sharing, and thus some degree of covalent bond (coB), will always exist.

Because of that blurring overlap of the two types of bonds, we can talk about the covalent and the ionic character of the bond. For a bond to be ionic (ioB), the ionic character must be the dominant one and reflected in the difference of electronegativity (ELneg) that exist between the two participating chemels. That is to say, that a ionic bond (ioB) must be more polar (ionic) than in a covalent bonding (coB) where electrons are being shared more equally.
   and the other, at the metal bonds type

On Metallic Bonding (Meb)

Looking at the Periodic Table (PETAC) of the chemical elements (chemels), we note that the majority of them are metals. There, in the metal world, each chemel releases one or more of its electrons creating collectively a common "cloud" arena of electrons that resides between them. That common ground "cloud" arena is made from the individual mini-clouds "parcels" that each electron is bringing with it through its carrying XB-cloud.

Due to the lost of those electrons, those metal-chemels become now positively charged. The generated "cloud" arena of "liberated" electrons are now being attracted by a multitude of chemels without being part of any of them. A collective common bonding (of the participating chemels) is being formed that is the called metallic bonding (meb). The common cloud of electrons, characteristic in a metallic bonding, is responsible indeed for their good electrical and thermal properties.

---

Much, much more, needs to be added in here for the stable chemels (staches), but now we move on to the other major type of chemical elements (chemels) --the unstable ones.

  The unstable chemels are the radioactive chemels (radchems) whose Maxfin number is greater than 82 as noted above. This subject of the radioactivity has been presented, in brief, in the page 10, and it will not be expanded in here. With this, we are leaving not only this page, but are leaving this entire section. Before moving to the last section of TRUTON, the Evolutionary Biology section, we present next a brief outlook of TRUTON: Present and Future.
.