Slashdot Mirror
New Graphical Representation of the Periodic Table
KentuckyFC writes "The great power of Mendeleev's periodic table was that it allowed him to predict the properties of undiscovered elements. But can this arrangement be improved? Two new envisionings of the periodic table attempt to do just that. The first uses a new graphical representation that shows the relative sizes of atoms as well as their groups and periods. The other uses the same kind of group theoretical approach that particle physicists developed to classify particles by their symmetries (abstract). That helped particle physicists predict the existence of new particles, but may have limited utility for chemists who seem to have discovered (or predicted) all of the elements they need already."
looks like something that should be on a game show. "I'll take Silicon for 500!"
but that design doesn't look much better than the current one. In fact, it looks worse. Helium and Hydrogen overlap, and part of the table is cut off completely. Some might whine that part of the table is cut off in the current version too, but that's just to make it fit on a page, it actually is one contiguous body.
I believe the age-old axiom "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" applies here.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
Is not strange the color scheme... you can see clearly now the Blue Elements of Death
If you're gonna go and change it, why not make it correct while you're at it?
Teach the controversy, people!
I like it though - it's pretty.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Unfortunately, Abubakr's arrangement means that the table can only be read by rotating it. That's tricky with a textbook and impossible with most computer screens.
Please, can somebody find a solution to this important screen rotation problem?
Part of what's nice about the current periodic table is that it's totally squared off. Even if it should wrap around in places, that information should be conveyed in words of symbols, rather than warping the entire thing into some odd shape.
The second image on the linked page, the one that shows the new layout in grid form? That's the one they should use if it's really more helpful that the current setup.
To quote a history book (pp. 20-21):
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I see the picture and only I can think about Las Vegas
great i spent all of high school remembering this dam thing and now they want to change it. what a great idea it is to go from looking at in from one direction spread out to now turn it around in every direction just to see what you are looking at. .... just looking at it is giving me a migraine
Wouldn't the circular version of the periodic table be better represented as a spiral to reflect continuity in sizes?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Keep 'em coming!
Yeah... that's what I'm asking... no need to elaborate.
"So why change it? According to Mohd Abubakr from Microsoft Research in Hyderabad"
So... why is Microsoft interested in something like this? I can understand MS doing research in a number of fields for the sake of research itself, but paying some guy to come up with yet another periodic table?
Instead of leaving the lanthanoids and actinoids in separate groups, why don't they merge them into the appropriate circles?
Anyway, it's still a stupid idea. It gives no more information than the current configuration, and places atoms together (the ends of the current rows) which causes a big jump in number of electrons between the two elements. And if you were going to base this on the size, shouldn't you adjust the boxes up/down based on their actual size instead of putting them together? I don't think that all the atoms in a row are exactly the same size.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
My stoner buddy just looked over my shoulder at the image in TFA
Woah, do you see those rings, dude? Thats pretty heavy stuff man!
I turned around to him and said "Only those outer rings".
He gave me a blank look back.
A circle is really hard to read and jumping away from the center and then counterclockwise to get to the next "row" is wacky. If you can't read the numbers very well, you won't be able to tell what order the elements are in.
Won't it look nice on a Zune HD (chemistry edition) though?
The atom size thing is no more present in the circular table than in the normal table. If distance from the center correlates with size, then Li and Ne are the same size according to the circular table. Lithium is about twice as big.
As for the H/He placement, helium is a noble gas, there is no question about that.
The circle table also mucks up the order of filling. Why are neon and lithium next to each other?
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
I think that was the point of the article - that the circular one was useless, but the group theory-based one might actually have predictive power.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Another periodic table, is not news.
Someone should have already linked one of the periodic table databases like:
http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
The new table that came out of Microsoft Research just seems silly. The idea that "closer to the middle means smaller atoms" is a new contribution seems bogus - with the traditional table, closer to the top means smaller atoms. Really the only advantage I can see is the separation of hydrogen and helium away from the other atom groups, which is something that could be easily accomplished using the current table. The circular design itself is a BIG disadvantage.
The second table seems like a more interesting concept. I tried making it through the actual paper - while it sounds like the author thinks the information conveyed in his redesign are better than in the current layout, I didn't see that it actually conveyed new information.
Disclaimer: I have done grad work in physics; but that was almost 20 years ago, and I don't work in anything even close to the field anymore.
#DeleteChrome
Um.... that's the one thing it totally *fails* to do. It's LESS clear on that one than the current "the ones at the bottom are bigger".
The guy's obviously an idiot with too much time on his hands.
No sig today...
Now people will try to steal it.
I think it needs work, but I think the fundamental idea is sound. The chemical properties of the elements are almost entirely based on how full the electron shells are, and I think a circular diagram represents that better. This particular representation is far from ideal (it's silly to have the names sideways and upside-down, among many other flaws), but as an abstract concept, I like it.
The guy's obviously an idiot with too much time on his hands.
Now now, put you claws away kitty, just because it doesn't make sense to one person doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to everyone. Some people might benefit from this, although I must admit that I don't find it better than what I used in school. If it helps anyone, great, if not, it's no reason to really slam it that much is it?
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Oops, Senior Moment.
It's a frakin circle!
The noble gases can, logically be considered as having either 8 or zero electrons in the outer shell, so could go to the next period.
Honestly though, a basic rectangular table does the job perfectly adequately.
you just gave dan brown the major plot point for his next robert langdon symbologist novel
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No one benefits from learning a confusing (and some parts plainly nonsense) representation of an academically accepted knowledge. To say the least, an 8th grader could have written this. The original paper is not peer reviewed, submitted by an author who works at Microsoft India (as he claims since there's no way to check), with a proud hotmail email address, and 8 references... Why is this posted on /. again? Oh yes, nice colors!
"That's worthy but flawed. Unfortunately, Abubakr's arrangement means that the table can only be read by rotating it. That's tricky with a textbook and impossible with most computer screens."
I spent endless hours (and quarters) playing tempest, that seemed to work quite well on a computer screen and was the first thing that came to mind when I saw this ring 'o' elements
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
I misread that as "New Geographical Representation of the Periodic Table". Made me go "Huh?"
That said, though, jogging one's memory isn't the best use of a table; given one put in front of you it'd be nice if its organization alone gave you information. I suppose that the circular representation could do this, with perhaps a few labels.
Of course this circular representation isn't all that new; the Chemical Galaxy has been around for a number of years now and has a similar structure.
Article says that even the designer of the group theory based one doesn't know if it has any predictive power.
Which makes me doubt seriously that it'll ever be worthwhile - comes across as back of the napkin engineering, not a real effort at improvement.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I do all my engineering on the back of a napkin, you insensitive clod!
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
It's definitely "news for nerds," but I get this creeping feeling that the whole endeavor should be tagged "slow chemistry day."
Are chemists really this bored with the classical table? Don't they have more important things to do? ;^)
--
Toro
The spiral table? Perhaps they've been playing too much "Mass Effect?"
Being weird is an automatic handicap. The current layout provides a wealth of data in a grid, something that can be represented in the simplest of data structures. If you're going to switch to circular and have strange shapes and free-floating elements, you need to make up for all the complexity you've added by showing significantly more correlation. This does not in the least. If you want to see alternative layouts that really give the current a run for its money, check out Stowe's.
The group theory method of organization is the same idea taught to anyone who's taken an atomic physics class (there are many "physics" periodic tables out there). Too bad we don't teach atomic physics very much anymore. It's a very useful representation for anyone who is looking at the elements from a modeling or spectroscopy perspective. There have to be tables in a similar representation that are decades old (though probably lacking a formal group theory explanation).
The summary missed the actual cool part of the group theory paper, which is that by doing the formal calculations, he's predicting a different set of atomic numbers should make up the superactinides than is normally assumed (the superactinides would be a third row that would go below the lanthanides and actinides). I have no idea if we'll ever be able to test this.
The traditional periodic table is meant to be organized by chemical properties. It seems to do that pretty well, there's not really a reason to change it.
Oh, here's a link I just found to the chart http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=164
For the Internet Database of Periodic Tables, see http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?Button=Spiral+Formulations
but may have limited utility for chemists who seem to have discovered (or predicted) all of the elements they need already
Erm... Unnilquadium ought to be enough for anybody??
I wonder what have you been reading!
"He says this gives a sense of the relative size of atoms--the closer to the centre, the smaller they are--something that is missing from the current form of the table. "
The coolest periodic table of elements is and always will be Hyde's spiral:
http://www.superliminal.com/DowSpiral1.jpg
It's like a board game.
a sense of the relative size of atoms--the closer to the centre, the smaller they are--something that is missing from the current form of the table
Oh, come on. The size of the circles don't scale to the size of the atoms, they just use the "closer to the center" nonsense. Is that really any better than just saying "the closer to the top row the smaller they are"? I don't see any merit to this at all.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Something must be wrong, I can't find dilithium in this new representation...
I remember at least the circular one (and no, I don't confuse it with the Galaxy of Elements), so it is not _that_ new. But the circular one is so incredibly stupid, it boggles the mind.
* You can see the relative sizes? Well, yes. But without a spiral instead of concentric rings, where does it start and stop? When do I descend down into the next ring? And how is the established system not providing the same information?
* He solves the problem of H and He by putting them somewhere where they do not make _any_ sense? Gee, great idea.
* TFA mentions a few other things.
Thing is, his approach makes 'sense' to anyone who has been in India for some time. The absolute focus on the improvements (which can usually be argued) and complete disregard for any problems when trying to replace something, especially when it is perceived as foreign, they have is astonishing.
And yes, that may sound xenophobic, but I assure you it's, to the best of me reflecting my thoughts and beliefs, simple fact.
The group-based one seems OK, but it basically just makes folding the paper easier by re-arranging the groups, thereby sacrificing the main 'advantage' of the round one: seeing at a glance how many protons any given element has. Doubtful if that's worth it..
I wonder if someone will actually win the speedboat / cruise holiday if they manage to hit Hydrogen...
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Why is this news? Some bloke at Microsoft has made a circular version of the periodic table in, presumably, Windows-colours. I can't imagine that a great deal of thought or effort has gone into doing this, and none of it adds anything to our understanding of anything. It does, of course, generate a bit of attention around Microsoft, which is all the purpose there is to publishing this nonsense.
my chemistry teacher first showed me this. I found it on the net today. : http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/PS2.jpg
Seems a bit derivative. Very similar if not a mere simplification of spiral periodic tables. [A. Szymanki, Spiral Version of Period System, Mat. Elektron. 3 (1986) 55 ]
Oh wait, he did it in color on a computer, that is ground breaking.
Someone from Microsoft took a product, changed it, and it's worse then before?
The Duece you say!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think the periodic spiral of Professor Thoedor Benfey is much better:
http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/C04/C04Links/chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/spiraltable.html
I hope this was an attempt at humor, because you've conflated two different sayings, Picasso drawing on a napkin and engineers performing back-of-the-envelope calculations.
Also, b-o-t-e calculations are supposed to be good enough to get started, not some brainstorming session that results in a half-baked idea.
Well, we can look at the Periodic Tables as the way to list the elements. But, Periodic Table is also a depiction of the Periodic Law that is based on three rules:
1) Aufbau Process/ n+l rule;
2) Pauli Exclusion Principle;
3) Hund's rule;
All of the above rules deal with quantum numbers and electronic structure of atoms. Unfortunately, tradidtional Periodic Table follows none of the above rules. It lists the elements in accordance with their chemical properties, but it does not follow the electronic structure of the atoms and therefore does not depict the Periodic Law properly. It is very hard to write (and explain to students how to write) electron configurations using traditional layout. It requires another image, 2D diagram that is called n+l mnemonic diagram that shows order of filling of the orbitals.
In 2006 I came up with new Periodic Table layout based on the basic rules of the Periodic Law listed above that allows direct derivation of the electron configurations as presented at http://perfectperiodictable.com/userguide/.
It combines the listing of the elements with the Aufbau Mnemonic diagram and it retains same groups of elements as the traditional table. It also depicts periodicity of the chemical properties just as well, with one exception: Helium.
While I was in process of designing new periodic table I came to realization that Periodic Law has Tetrahedral Symmetry. See: http://perfectperiodictable.com/novelty/. Later, I was contacted by Jess Tauber who have noticed same thing about 30 years ago.
Please, check it out.
Valery Tsimmerman.