Revamping The Periodic Table?

vinohradska writes "There is an interesting article on the periodic table over at Slate: 'Oxford ecologist Philip Stewart has designed a new periodic table of the elements, and it's a hit. American schools are placing orders daily for Stewart's table, and the Royal Society of Chemists recently sent a copy to every British secondary school. Stewart's is the only remake to achieve widespread adoption since Dmitri Mendeleev invented the original periodic table in a fit of brilliance in 1869.' "

An image of the chart.

[XorNand]

Since the painfully brief article buries the most relevant piece of this story 5 pages into a linked slideshow: An image [wikimedia.org] of the chart in question.

::curmudgeony voice:: Dunno... certainly looks prettier, but at quick glance I can gather a lot more information from an "old school" chart.

I'm giving away my age with this post, but...

[The I Shing]

I trust this won't affect The Elements Song by Tom Lehrer. If you've never heard the song, or haven't listened to it since your high school Chemistry teacher played it for you in class, check out the horribly clever Flash animation of the song [privatehand.com] at privatehand.com.

Link to Wikipedia Article

[vinohradska]

I forgot to mention that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Galaxy [wikipedia.org] is the wikipedia article.

Re:An image of the chart.

[madhippy]

top right of linked image - there are some elements marked simply with '?' - are these undiscovered/unamed ?

More Periodic Tables

[Lev13than]

There's a good collection of periodic tables here [chemistrycoach.com]. Also note that the periodic table referred to in the article is similar to one produced by Thoedor Benfey [maricopa.edu].

Nerd 1: Come on, Mr. Simpson, you'll never pass this course if you don't know the periodic table.
Homer: Ehh, I'll write it on my hand.
Nerd 1: Ho! Including all known lanthanides and actinides? Ha, ha! Good luck.

Re:If it ain't....

[Freexe]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Chem icalGalaxy_Stewart_2004.jpg [wikimedia.org] If you look at the table, you will see its is actually really nice, and easy to follow and work out groupings.

Re:Interesting, but not useful chart

[potpie]

Did you see the illustration on page 6? I think it's obvious that the size of the text could be increased and the amount of blackspace decreased. It would not be hard to draw it yourself in a more readable way. It's not as though that galaxy picture is the only possible way to represent this new table.

Re:Free poster?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best resource out there is probably http://www.webelements.com/ [webelements.com]. Everything from simple tables to in depth data.

Re:What the question marks?

[cagle_.25]

In principle, the chart could spiral out forever. In practice, it can't because large nuclei (reflected by large atomic numbers) tear themselves apart with Coulombic (electrical) forces. The question marks are elements that either haven't yet been made (e.g., #113) or haven't yet been named (e.g., #118 -- although there's some controversy about whether it has been made)

There is a much better picture of the new table

[nganju]

Here: New Periodic Table [msn.com]

It's less cluttered and easier to read than the "Galaxy" version.

Re:An image of the chart.

[cagle_.25]

That is correct. #113, 115 are undiscovered. #114, 116, 118 are un-named, unless it turns out that the data supporting their discovery was indeed incorrect [lbl.gov], in which case they are also undiscovered.

Re:I love that unusable slideshow

[I_M_Noman]

That slideshow is laughably unusable...[snippage]...Some brain-dead designer decided it would be a good idea to pop the slideshow open in a window that doesn't have scrollbars.

Hmm, sounds like somebody never learned how to navigate web pages with their keyboard. I had no problem moving through the slideshow by [tab]bing until the focus was on the ">", then pressing [enter]. Old-school, but effective in this case since there aren't a lot of links on the pages. That said, scroll bars would have been sorta nice.

Re:If it ain't....

[jacksonj04]

It's pissing awful. The current one is nice and easy. Groups go down, periods go across.

WRONG

[autopr0n]

No, modern charts have all the elements that can exist on them, the 'gaps' are there because lighter elements only have a few valence electrons. For example, hydrogen and helium are very far apart on the table, but actualy they only differ by one electron. And since Hydrogen has one extra electron, it is grouped with lithium, sodium, potasium, etc. Helium has 'all' it's electrons so it gets grouped with neon, xenon, argon, etc.

There's still spaces to to add onto at the end for elements like Unununium which include larger and larger elements. But there are no 'gaps'.

Re:An image of the chart.

[tek.net-ium]

Indeed, I can't see any practicing engineer or scientist finding any use for this thing. It's also a bad idea for instruction, because it's a gross oversimplification of the distribution of the elements in the universe. The periodic table is useful, because it's complete and accurate, but this is not. There are already several [periodictable.com] other [earthlink.net] period tables [wikipedia.org] with more instructional or historical value.

Re:An image of the chart.

[LightningBolt!]

Neutronium. No protons.

Re:I'm not sold on it

[BioCS.Nerd]

After writing my above comment I decided to do a quick search on super atoms to see what I could find. Here's a short list for those interested:

• Super Atoms [afrlhorizons.com]
• Super Atoms from Bose-Einstein Condensation [unimelb.edu.au]

Enjoy!

Not the first remake

[madmancarman]

While some may say it doesn't qualify as a "remake", Henry Moseley [wikipedia.org]'s work resulted in the reorganization of the periodic table by atomic number, as opposed to Mendeleev's table, which went by atomic weight and chemical properties. Unfortunately, Moseley was killed at the age of 27 while fighting in World War I.

The strange thing is that high school chemistry books that I've taught from treat Mendeleev as a sort of Socrates/demigod figure, yet make no mention of Moseley's contributions, which really advanced chemistry. We wouldn't know anything about the inner workings of the atom if we didn't know and understand atomic numbers.

As for this new poster... it would be something I'd put up on the wall of my classroom to attract attention and give students a new way of looking at the elements, but for any serious work, we'd still have to use the standard periodic table. There's nothing wrong with looking at the elements in a new way, but that doesn't mean it will be useful beyond generating interest in science.

Re:I don't like it.

[wolfgang_spangler]

Frankly, I liked the 1950s chart after it better. There was a certain beauty in the layout of that chart. The new chart is pretty much just the elements spiraled across a picture of a galaxy.

According to Phillip Stewarts website [chemicalgalaxy.co.uk], this chart isn't meant to replace the current chart.

From the website [chemicalgalaxy.co.uk] :

The intention is not to replace the familiar table, but to complement it and at the same time to stimulate the imagination and to evoke wonder at the order underlying the universe.

Re:An image of the chart.

[sp3tt]

You have a trailing slash too much there, the correct link is:
http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/2093564/21 22917/2122918/2122942/Longman.jpg [msn.com]

Re:I'm giving away my age with this post, but...

[Myrmi]

Well, if The Elements Song is okay, The Drugs Song [amateurtransplants.com] should be fine.

Chemistry Books and Links

[alchemist68]

Much about the chemistry of the elements can be obtained from:

Essential Trends in Inorganic Chemistry by D.M.P. Mingos, D. M. P. Mingos

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198 501080/qid=1121871924/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/002-082468 3-5368037?v=glance&s=books [amazon.com]

and

Chemistry of the Elements by A. Earnshaw, Norman Greenwood

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0750 633654/qid=1121872078/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0824 683-5368037?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 [amazon.com]

Re:Thank God

[Fiver-]

Rote memorization is quite different from actual learning.

Nice for British Schools

[zeoslap]

I think it's sad that while American schools have to order and pay for these things out of their already over stretched budgets they have gone out to every Secondary School in Britain.

Re:WRONG

[shawn(at)fsu]

Whaher or not there are gaps now, there were gaps at one time. Things like 110 all thought not being discoverd were predicted given the periodic nature.

Then again, I only took up to Chem II in college so take that with a gran of NaCl2 no Na2Cl no I mean 2NaCl.... you know what I mean.

(almost) RIGHT

[TheLetterPsy]

Hydrogen and Helium differ also by one proton and two neutrons.

Atomic H: 1 P, 1 e
Atomic He: 2 P, 2 N, 2 e

The reason they are grouped as they are (vertical groupings are really all that matters) is because, in their atomic state, those species have very similar physical properties.

That being said, oxidized Li is *somewhat* similar to He (atomic radius, further reactivity, etc).

IAAC (Chemist)

Re:An image of the chart.

[tek.net-ium]

How is the existing periodic table not a gross oversimplification if this new one is?

This periodic table doesn't show relationships within the groups of elements cleanly, which is best done in a tabular form, instead of a linear spiral form. It also seems to be conveying the confused idea of chemicals being somehow distributed in a galaxy.

As far as I can tell, the new one(s) are entirely complete and accurate. Moreso, they actually are organized in a way that can be extended. The existing periodic table is only complete because of the footnotes, extensions and other non-obvious changes required to stuff all of that extra didn't-know-it-existed-at-the-time information into it.

What footnotes and extensions? Like adding a property stating the exact atomic radius or atomic weight? I have a periodic table that lists 8 properties for every element, but I really only use the periodic table for the atomic weights, since the other information I rarely use can easily look up with a computer.

The new one isn't only pretty, it's totally logical in an absolutely obvious way.

It's pretty because they put a galaxy in the backdrop? I guess if that's the case, I could make the old one sexy by putting a picture of a hot girl in the background or angry if a drew a picture of a face with eyebrows pointing towards the nose. It's not logical; chemically there's a huge difference between flourine and sodium, but this new periodic spiral doesn't effectively convey that. Hell, they even lined up hydrogen with carbon.

Poor Theodore Gray

[uberdave]

Now he's going to have to build a new table of elements [theodoregray.com]

Re:An image of the chart.

[ceoyoyo]

By footnotes are they talking about the lanthanoids and actinoid groups? They're usually listed at the bottom of the table but they could very easily be included IN the table, except that would make it really, really wide. The table shows quite a bit of information about the electron shells -- there are two elements in the first row because the shell can hold two electrons, eight in the second and third, etc. So REALLY there should be a gap in the fourth and fifth rows as in the second and third -- with no need for footnotes.

This new table doesn't show any of that information. Or lots of other things... which element is the most electronegative? Which is the least? Most reactive? Least? On the old table these extreme properties are in far corners.

Re:I'm not sold on it

[fejes]

The S, P, D and F groupings are, in fact, very important. The original periodic table was built upon it based on the spectra of the atoms they found. Spectroscopy is still one of the only ways to learn anything on the atomic level.

A little known, and mainly forgotten fact is that the S, P, D and F designations mean something: Back in the early days of spectroscopy, chemists looking at the emissions given off by the different elements took to classifying them in groups, which they labeled "Sharp", "Principle", "Diffuse" and "Fundamental".

We now understand about the origins of the different banding patterns, and such - but those traditional names have stuck around, and so has the classical shape of the periodic table.

What you see on the "new" periodic table completely eliminates the valuable information that you get from the common underlying structures of the atoms that give rise to the spectra, and hence give rise to the groupings on the "old" periodic table.

And what the heck is the point of putting Hydrogen on top of Carbon? Because they both have half filled orbitalls?? So strange.

Re:Hydrogen placement

[lgw]

Well, when dealing with water chemistry, clearly hydogen hydroxide is a special case amoung the alkalines! It still makes more sense to have hydrogen over lithium than over florine, however. I wonder how different the properties of hydrogen and lithium are in conditions where metallic hydrogen is stable.