I am not sure about rowers because it is an unfamiliar world for me - sounds interesting and if that is what your brain wants to do, then that is probably what will work best.
For the actinides - the la-la-lactinides - I have a set of singers. And for the act-act-actinides, I have a short play. That just means when I am recalling individually, if they are singing, then I know it is a lactinide and acting, an actinide.
Your system sounds intriguing. I’d like to hear how it works.
Lynne
You can probably tell it’s been a long time since I’ve looked at a periodic table 
I find establishing traits that certain loci have in common to be an interesting challenge.
Your way makes total sense, I’m capsizing the rowing club 
I have incorporated the Periodic Table into a conventional memory palace, but these additions enhance both the layout and the properties of the elements. Memorizing the atomic numbers is a straightforward task, and the designated locations enable the inclusion of additional data through the utilization of storytelling and imagery. The method of attachment varies depending on the specific location and information being incorporated. Revised version:In my memory palace, I have ingeniously integrated the Periodic Table, elevating its layout and properties to a whole new level. Memorizing the atomic numbers has become a breeze, thanks to this clever arrangement. Moreover, the designated locations within the palace offer a remarkable opportunity to expand my knowledge by incorporating captivating stories and vivid imagery. The way I attach this information depends on the unique characteristics of each location and the specific details I wish to remember.
Sorry, returning to this after some time.
Could you go into how you categorise the info in your MP. How do you manage common traits shared across different groups. Also, if you remember the atomic weights with decimalisation, how do you remember where the point goes?
I’ve been thinking about using a made up character to represent decimal points if I’m remembering very specific numbers, but not sure if that’s convoluted
@BarKeegan Maybe use a set of scale images?
I.e. something that denotes the scale: 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, 100, 1000.
I’ve been toying with the idea of using animals.
If you take their weight in grammes you can get a range from like 2.5 milligrams for a mosquito to 200,000,000g for a blue whale.
Of course it turns out that googling the weight of animals is a fraught endeavour, so I haven’t completed or used a working set.
But if you need three or four orders of magnitude maybe you can just get a set of four animals that is sort of right?
I’m not sure I’m grasping this approach, but that’s on me 
Just use an image for the period if you need it. I have a purple sea urchin for one. Could just as easily use a super ball, laser pointer, pin, so on.
What I mean is this:
Let’s say you have an image for a number - say potato (for 911).
Is it 0.911?
9.11?
91.0?
Or 910?
You could have a set of scale images:
Mosquito say would be 0.001.
So a potato combined with a mosquito would be 0.911.
Bees could be 0.1.
So a potato combined with a bee would be 91.1.
A shrew could be 10.
So a potato combined with a shrew would be 9110.
A whale could be 100,000,000,000.
So a potato combined with a whale would be 91,100,000,000,000
The idea is using the very rough gram weight of animals to get a set of animals for each scale.
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
Etc.
Yeah, adding the point as a symbol should work fine.
You could even do a full person, object and action for it.
If you go this route with atomic weights, and you choose 4 digits of accuracy, the smallest value is 1.008 and the largest is 238.0.
So you just need 0.001, 0.01, 0.1
1008 with 0.001 for hydrogen
To
2380 with 0.1 for uranium.
Hi Lynne, @LynneKelly I realised that I had read this and other similar descriptions in your books, without really understanding the detail, so please humour me! In your palaces/journies, are you literally imagining yourself in first person walking through the loci? And bowing and crossing your fingers and lala-ing as you go? And do you ever perform these actions in your actual physical body (maybe just a little bit?) or is it all imaginary? I ask because in my many palaces I am mainly travelling around in the third person and picking up the images/sounds/activities/emotions that I have stored at each locus. I don’t “interact” with them really. Is there anything in the historical literature comparing the first vs third person approach? Thanks, Gavino
Hi Gavino,
This 2017 thread keeps getting picked up. Wonderful!
I think the detail varies depending on how your brain works. I have aphantasia, so no visual images when I imagine. So that dictates the way I work, I think.
I visit the palaces physically when I encode, and perform the actions physically. I don’t need to do that when I revise or visit the palace to recall. But if I get out of practice, I will go back physically.
I use stories much more than images, each location having a key story starter, rather than me being able to visualise other than as a vague concept. So I would never encode just by imagination unless it’s a location I know well. That is the case for Chinese because some locations (the radicals for the first character in the word) have lots of words there.
I don’t really understand the first person / third person concept. I just image the location and my actions come to mind. So isn’t that all first person because it’s me? I don’t ever imagine anyone else doing the palace.
There are some locations I pass in daily wandering, and I am always tempted to do the actions. I check if anyone is watching first! 
Lynne
Hi Lynne — thanks, that’s really helpful.
On the 1st/3rd person point: what I meant was that when I “run” a palace I often experience it more like watching “someone” move through it (observer/third-person), rather than through my own eyes with a strong sense of bodily action (field/first-person). I completely get why that distinction may not feel meaningful if you’re not visualising as such.
However, your point about physically visiting and enacting the actions at encoding (especially after a break) really resonates — I’m going to try adding a bit more embodied/physical encoding (even small gestures) to see if it improves both initial learning speed and recall strength.
My thought is that I’ll start (as always) with a basic visual moving image, but trying to be physically “there” in my mind as well. Then afterwards on my second pass when I typically add some sound or smell or emotion, or whatever, I’ll also mentally add some “personal” “physical” interaction with the locus and/or the image. It shouldn’t really add much time to the process and it just might make it much better…
Thanks again — I definitely keep learning something new from this thread as well!
Gavino
Hi Gavino,
Enjoy your experiments and report back here if you get a chance. It’s fascinating to see how people with diverse brains tackle the same methods.
Lynne