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."

Comments

Huh

[Dyinobal]

looks like something that should be on a game show. "I'll take Silicon for 500!"

Re:Huh

[TheGreatOrangePeel]

looks like something that should be on a game show. "I'll take Silicon for 14!"

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Huh

[Canazza]

this looks like it should be on star trek - and it's much nicer looking than that silly circular one

Re:Huh

[ioshhdflwuegfh]

Dude, it's a dart board.

Call me a cynic..

[Afforess]

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.

Re:Call me a cynic..

[Afforess]

To quote someone far more famous than I,
"Form follows Function"

The current version is very useful. One can tell which atom is larger than another by simply looking down the column of the element, or across the period (row). The Electron Affinity increases across the period, and up the columns. Many periodic trends can easily be told by the current chart. It is extremely helpful and useful in that regard.

Should we throw away all that usefulness in the name of "fresh" and "new" ideas? I think not.

Re:Call me a cynic..

[annodomini]

I like this one a lot better.

Anyhow, having new designs for representing the periodic table is not a bad thing. Sometimes seeing the same information presented in different ways can help visualize it. I approve of people trying to improve the display of the elements and their periodic relationships, even if as a general purpose reference I'll probably stick with the tried and true table.

Re:Call me a cynic..

[Volante3192]

The major problem I see with it is they stitched the table ends together rather than really account for size. You have to know the previous one to make any sense of the new one.

Take the first inner ring: it LOOKS like it goes B - C - N - O - F - Ne - Li - Be... and that puts 10 right next to 3.

Makes sense if you KNOW to start counting at Lithium, but if you're just looking at the table, you will naturally start at Boron. More annoyingly is that puts a very unreactive element first. The great part about the old one is it went from very reactive, to minimally reactive, to very reactive (with a brief stop to inertsville). Again, you lose that having the top line bookended by Boron and Beryllium.

Re:Call me a cynic..

[Anachragnome]

I think you are like me--a visual thinker.

Some people quite simply comprehend things more efficiently when the information is supplied in a context that is comfortable to them.

An example of this I used to use as an automotive mechanic was alignment angles of the steering and suspension systems. They can be related numerically, or graphically, but there is a third context that is what I tried to teach the younger mechanics in the shops I worked at--spatial. Some mechanics had a very difficult time translating numbers to making a car go in a straight line (it can be far more difficult then one might imagine). I tried to make correlations between the numbers and, say for instance, the angle the front struts actually lean forward and backward equaling -/+ caster changes--to attempt to get the image of the strut in their mind 3-dimensionally. When they could imagine visually the changes the numbers represented, it all fell into place--they understood it.

These changes to the table simply make it more accessible to people that think more visually. While it may work well for some, it may not for others. And that is just fine. Use what works for you.

Re:Call me a cynic..

[residieu]

Why is "Towards the center is the smaller" easier than "The top is smaller"? The other trend in atomic sizes is size decreases as you go, right, and this new chart totally destroys that. It looks like Lithium and Neon should be similar in size (since they're right next to each other), but Lithium is the largest in its row and Neon the smallest. If they wanted to show the center is smaller, they shouldn't have shown the elements in circular rings, but as sort of a spiral-shape. All the Noble gases should be shown as closer to the center than the Alkali Metals (Lithium and its column, excluding Hydrogen)

Re:Call me a cynic..

[buchner.johannes]

In whatever way you present it, natures elements are messed up ;-)

This link lists pretty much all the tables:
http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt.html

Just wow. I didn't see yet how they account for the overlap between d/p/s/f.

Microsoft research

[gmuslera]

Is not strange the color scheme... you can see clearly now the Blue Elements of Death

Still not right

[schon]

If you're gonna go and change it, why not make it correct while you're at it?

Teach the controversy, people!

Re:Still not right

[stephanruby]

Actually, I wish all Science diagrams would be as entertaining as that one.

Now on a more serious note, it would seem this guy just worked off this existing wheel design without giving a proper citation (the credit goes to Clumma on that technologyreview.com blog for finding it). And he didn't improve on that wheel design (except for the new cooler looking black background) his copy is much worse than the original (quite unreadable). It's no surprise he developed it while working for Microsoft. It sounds like he took a page out of Microsoft's playbook.

Screen rotation problem?

[Haxamanish]

From the article:

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?

this has been going on for some time

[Trepidity]

To quote a history book (pp. 20-21):

The way in which the periodic system is displayed is a fascinating one that especially appeals to the popular imagination. Since the time of the early periodic tables of John Newlands, Julius Lothar Meyer, and Dimitri Mendeleev, there have been many attempts to obtain the "ultimate" periodic table. Indeed, it has been estinated that within 100 years of the introduction of Mendeleev's famous table of 1869, approximately 700 different versions of the periodic table were published. These include all kinds of alternatives, including three-dimensional tables, helices, concentric circles, spirals, zigzags, step tables, and mirror image tables. Even today, articles are regularly published in the Journal of Chemical Education, for example, purporting to show new and improved versions of the periodic system.

Re:Spiral Form

[tpjunkie]

The atomic radii don't progress in a nice orderly linear increase in size with increasing element number; in fact each period overlaps part of the period that comes before it...

Site Full of Periodic Tables

[Jack9]

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

Re-inventing the wheel?

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Re:not new

[MaggieL]

Yeah, but remeber, it's from Microsoft Research. They're innovators, dammit!

Not only have the patented the round table, they've also patented the time machine they're going to use to back in time and sue Erdmann and Mendeleev.

And then King Arthur.

Database of periodic tables:
http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=167