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.' "

Comments

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 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.

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 other period tables with more instructional or historical value.

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

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.

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 at privatehand.com.

Link to Wikipedia Article

[vinohradska]

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

More Periodic Tables

[Lev13than]

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

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: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.

Not the first remake

[madmancarman]

While some may say it doesn't qualify as a "remake", Henry Moseley'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.

(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)