Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiLeft-step or Janet form of the Periodic table and Question of best form of the table
Submitted by bloggoman on 21 November 2006 - 9:10am.
What do people think of the Janet periodic table which is endorsed on WebElements as well as Eric Scerri's new book on the Periodic Table, (OUP, 2006) ?
Do people agree with Scerri's claim that there really might be a 'best form' of the periodic table even though we may now have discovered it yet.
Another way of saying this is should we be realists about chemical periodicity or is it just a matter of convention in which case there is no 'best table'.
regards,
bloggoman
I don't have Eric's book yet
I don't have Eric's book yet - awaiting delivery. Yes I do like the JANET form, and it's in my chemical bonding book as well. 'Best form'? Tricky. Define best. Are we more interested in chemical properties, if so which ones? Or do we prefer one based upon electronic configuration of the atom, and if so do we mean the isolated atom or atoms in molecules? And so on. Perhaps it is horses for courses?
--
bloggoman I think that by
bloggoman
I think that by best form he means most closely representing the "truth" about periodicity of the elements. In this sense utility is somewhat seconday. The best table need not necessarily reflect the interests of chemists, quantum physicists, geologists or whatever type of scientists.
It is just be the most fundamental possible arrangement of the elements. It is a philosophical notion which puts truth above utility. At least that's how I read Scerri.
bloggoman.
I don't like that JANET
I don't like that JANET table much - anything which puts helium in the same column as the alkaline earth metals seems a bit brainwrong to me!
http//www.feline1.co.uk
No, the JANET table isn't
No, the JANET table isn't very useful; if one really wanted to eliminate the lanthanide and actinide islands at the bottom, the optimal solution would be to move columns 1 and 2 after 18, so that Li and Be follow He and then position the actinides and lanthanides before column 3 so that La (as usual) begins things and Yb precedes Lu and Hf
and the next row begins with Ac and No and Lr precede Rf. That being said, the 18 column, 7 period form currently used not only reflects chemical reality but also quantum physics; that being the case, I don't see the reason for any reshuffling.