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.' "

Free poster?

[ovapositor]

Does anyone where we can get a free poster of the Periodic Table or better yet, a chart of the nuclides! It would be great for home schooling :)

I don't like it.

[jandrese]

The writeup mentioned that the chart had been bought by several schools, but I'm willing to bet that most of them are just putting them on the wall because they're pretty and sort of educational. The tiny dots for each element are going to be a lot harder to read (and stick additional information in) than a regular boxy chart.

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.

Not News!

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember seeing one of those spiral periodic tables more than 10 years ago. I still have the book and I guess it wasn't news even then.

Just shows again: it's all about the marketing (sadly).

Interesting Points from SlideShow

[hagrin]

Stewart created his table in part because he remembered being deeply impressed, at the age of 12, by a similar one he saw at the science pavilion of the 1951 Festival of Britain. An impressionistic swirl in vivid colors created by the artist Edgar Longman, the table stood little hope of being adopted by classrooms, but it spurred Stewart to study science. He recalls being struck by nature's underlying order: "I realized that the atoms that make up a galaxy can be arranged in just the same form as the galaxy itself." There's a few points from page 5 of the slideshow that really hit home. 1) First, he basically ripped this idea off from a previous chart built in 1951, modernized, gave it a better "UI" and is now shipping it out to the masses. Sound familiar?

2) On a positive note, I believe that the visual upgrades to the chart (although, will color blind people have any issues getting the full content from the chart now?) will definitely help students remember and learn emelents easier. The visual separation should definitely increase the ability for students to remember how many different colors, how many elemnts per color per spiral, etc. 3) What I think is the most interesting point of all of this is the relation of the elements being able to be tied back together and done so in a shape that mirrors the overall shape of the galaxy. It's sort of like the movie "Pi" where we can see trends, shapes, circles and spirals all within our life and this would be just one more example.

Re:An image of the chart.

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

I actually much prefer Stewart's reconstruction of the 50's art exhibit which led to his "galaxy of elements" thing:

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/2093564/21 22917/2122918/2122942/Longman.jpg/ [msn.com]

But above it all I prefer the current table by far.

What the question marks?

[NigelJohnstone]

IANAC (I am not a chemist so I'm allowed to be dumb), whats the question marks at the right edge about?

I like it

[cagle_.25]

I teach chemistry, and I like the chart. It conveys a sense of connectedness between both groups and periods. It also conveys the "periodic" nature of the groups much more effectively than the standard chart does, as the elements within a group line up *not* because they've been arbitrarily shoved into place, but because they spiral out to the appropriate location.

Still and all, I will probably have it only as a demo tool. The standard chart is much easier to read. It also shows electron configurations more clearly than the spiral does.

Back in the day

[proverbialcow]

I remember sitting in high school chem in 1994, thinking that the periodic table would be much better represented as a conical helicoid - a spiral wrapped around a cone.

A few years later I saw a list of known isotopes arranged one element per line and indented based on the weight of the nucleus, with simple hydrogen in the eupper-left corner. The stable isotopes were colored differently, and the color band formed a skewed triangle that would have also wrapped nicely around a cone.

Looks familiar to this TRS-80 owner

[Atom Tan]

I used to play this educational game for the TRS-80 called "Atom" http://nitros9.stg.net/atom.html [stg.net].

The screen showed a central nucleus, with spinning electron holes. Your job was to capture free electrons with your little ship and shoot them into the holes. You started with the first shell with 2 holes, one for H and one for He, and then the next shell of 8 appeared for you to fill, etc. etc. Eventually the screen got very cramped, which must be why they stopped at 54.

If you fired the electron and missed the hole, you'd hit the nucleus, and the whole thing would explode. Very frustrating once you had made it all the way to Germainium (I remember playing this game about the same time as the Jackson's Victory Tour, and being tickled that there was an element named Germainium, but I digress).

not the first revision

[mblase]

I believe it was in last month's "Discover" magazine that a different new periodic table [uga.edu] was discussed; this one was designed by an earth scientist and was oriented specifically toward his professional needs. There's no reason that it should replace the "standard" periodic table, but if it's better for his needs, more power to him.

The periodic table is a kind of model, and like all models, it's just one way of simplifying the real world and diagraming it for easy understanding by humans. There's no reason everyone should use one model of anything for all purposes, and if this new "galaxy" chart helps middle school kids learn and understand chemistry before moving on to the "standard" periodic table, it's a good thing.

Re:Any scientific relevance

[dougmc]

Is there any scientific relevance to the layout of this chart whatsoever.

Yes. The same scientific relevance that the original periodic chart has exists here as well.

But as for the galaxy graphics, well, he's just trying to make it pretty (read: this is why people are buying it. It's pretty.) And as for the spiral shape, well, all it does is put Ne next to Na, Ar next to K, Kr next to RB, etc. Which does make sense, as they differ by only one electron and one proton. (We'll ignore neutrons for now.)

But beyond that, it's just a novelty, and I don't see it replacing the traditional period chart of the elements.

And as for neutronium, yes, it gives a convenient place for it, but I'm not sure it even belongs there. I wouldn't call it an atom [answers.com] because it doesn't meet definition 3a, so I wouldn't call it an element at all. So I wouldn't put it on the periodic chart of the elements ...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The concept of "preference"

[oneiros27]

Most people's preferences are to stay with the things that they already know, and what they're familiar with. (except in mating, but that's a whole 'nother issue).

I like the old chart because all of the detail is right there with the element -- I don't have to go and look at the chart along the right side of the page to get all of its details. But ... could this be a better form for someone who isn't already familiar with the periodic table that we've grown up with? Is it easier for children to understand?

Yes, the whole 'galaxy' thing is most likely to get children interested in science. They'd have probably worked a dinosaur in there, too, if someone hadn't pointed out that it'd then be sexist, and appeal to boys more than girls, but if it gets the kids interested, and maybe they then move to what we think of as the 'normal' periodic table (being that it's much more dense with its information), it doesn't really hurt anyone.

It just makes it so that the kids won't get jokes like the Periodic Table of Condiments [backtable.org] quite as quickly. (of course, the folks who made it didn't understand the Periodic Table of Elements, or they'd have placed similarly behaving items in a column, with the most reactive elements towards the edges, except for the far right column for things that never go bad)

Re:An image of the chart.

[GeckoX]

I totally fail to see where reality backs up your statements.

I always thought of the (current) periodic table to be a non-obvious hack at organizing this information. Sure, it's logical in a sort of kinda sorta way. I believe we become comfortable with it because it is what we are taught, but I do not see how the current design conveys the benefits you suggest it does.

Please expand on your 3 points because they really don't make sense to me.

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

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.

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

Maybe you have to _not_ be a scientist to see it, I don't know.

Re:Interesting Points from SlideShow

[InadequateCamel]

I think that the incorporation of the f block into a linear atomic weight order is great. However...

I would suggest that teaching students yet another way to memorize information without learning the how or why is not a good thing.

Secondly, the periodic table already separates the elements into s, p, d and f blocks according to (most) of their relevant properties, and since this chart is largely just a pretty way of re-drawing the information there is not much to be gained. I have colour-coded periodic tables available as well.

Thirdly, as another poster has pointed out, the electronegativity trend is not quite as obvious according to this layout; as well, other trends such as EA and the preferred ion charges are harder to assess. To return to the learning aspect, I would argue that the order of the current periodic table is the easier way for a student to assess these properties and understand, at least at some level, why they arise.

I'm not beating my CRC here and resisting change because I am scared, but I think this is change for the sake of change and marketing.

Cheers!

Tom Lehrer Elements Video

[sconeu]

See this [privatehand.com]. (warning -- Flash animation).

Re:Free poster?

[Doctor Memory]

Out where I used to be from (Oregon), the main reason to home-school kids was to give them intense religious indoctrination, and little else. I once overheard a home-schooled girl who, when asked a simple history question (what was the Louisiana Purchase, I believe), stated "That's not in the Bible, I don't have to know that."

Chilling.

Stowe's

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're talking about non-traditional layouts, I prefer Stowe's [maricopa.edu].

Superliminal chart

[Nyangau]

http://www.superliminal.com/pfractal.htm [superliminal.com] has an interesting representation, dating back to 1995.

Wow this table looses alot of information

[Metex]

Wow I really dislike the 'we dont need a footnote for X elements' anymore argument. The current periodic table tries to convey 4 key concepts with its current layout:

1. What seperates diffrent elements in number of protons
2. electron shells/sub orbitals
3. radius size, and other properties dealing with how many electrons it has
4. Common physical charecteristics.

Number 2 is my argument of why there is a 'footnote' in the periodic table. the first 2 columns are s orbitals the ones in the middle Sc-Zn are d orbitals and on the other side is p orbitals starting with B-NE. The footnote is f orbitals. Now please dont start the argument, well if that is the case then He should be in column 2. Alot of Chem programs do this weird thing where He is produced twice on the periodic table once above colomn 2 and in its usual place.

As for the new layout it dystroys this simple oh what orbital is being filled layout. as well as for the life of me I cant figure out why H, He, Be, and Li are on the same rung.

A better table - 3-D placement by quantum numbers

[Savantissimo]

A much better chart for physicists and physical chemists is Stowe's 3-D periodic table. http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/stowetable .html [maricopa.edu] which arranges things according to the principal quantum numbers. It comes out completely symmetric.

Re:Free poster?

[surprise_audit]

And if their State Dept of Education catches up with her parents, they'll be in trouble. There's a certain curriculum you're supposed to conform to, if I recall correctly. We looked into the possibility of home-schooling for our daughter when the empire-building little dictator of the local elementary wouldn't accept several independant medical evaluations about her special needs. In a state where the average number of special needs kids is around 8%, somehow his school of 700 kids had none at all... But I'm ranting, and the guy has moved on, and the school caved when we talked to the State Board of Education and said the magic words "due process hearing"...

Re:An image of the chart.

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

The more you learn about chemistry the more the current form makes sense. This piece of crap is just more visual trash will inhibit real learning in school.

Although, perhaps I could tear this 'new version' to peices even better if there were a version I could actually SEE posted somewhere on the net. There are fuzzy low-res versions all over the place, but not a one that I can really study.

There are DOZENs if not HUNDREDS of different table formats. I doubt that this one is even moderatly new, excepting perhaps the irrelevant backdrop. The layout depends on what is of interest; a astrophysics professor might have one that accentuates the electron energy states, whereas a chemical engineer might have a chart which accentuates the prevailence of an element in nature.

The current form is incredibly logical. Purly logical. Proton count increases from top-left to bottom right. Happens to correspond to about a half dozen different patterns. God, I can't even think of all the variables that our simple, standard table shows. There is SO much information packed into it. Even if you stripped out everything but the symbol the current table would convey a staggering amount of information. This new table? Mmmm.... not so much.

As for your last comment: It *IS* worse. Because eventually it will have to be discarded and students will have to learn to use the 'normal' periodic table. Sure it will be easier than if they had never heard of elements and protons etc before, but they won't be familiar with it. They will be slower with its use, and more easily frustrated. And public schools are famous for leaving out details that a teacher 'doesn't feel is important'. I tutored college chemistry: anything which adds to confusion without benifit is very bad. There is just too much new information to convey in a short time to have to add yet something else.

All of that said, I read the article hoping to find something which IS better and more intuitive. I believe one could be made which would be better suited to 'general use'; e.g. the casual chemist: the engineer type that looks to a table once in a while to calculate combustion energies, or for the student of general inorganic chemistry. Was bummed to see that POS.

willing to comment publicly?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a reporter with USA Today and I am considering writing a story about the "new" table. Anyone willing to go on the record? You need to be actively teaching chemistry (or using the periodic table in your classroom- not necessarily the new one, although that would be great), or a chemist working at a University.