Mendeleev system

The problem of the superheavy nuclides with the atomic numbers around 114 stimulated TC separation studies of their expected chemical homologs — the elements of groups 13 to 18 in the sixth period of the Mendeleev system. With the use of H2 as the reducing carrier gas, elements from Hg to Rn could be separated, mostly in their elemental state [83,84], An illustration is given in Fig. 1.20. This approach was used in searching (yet unsuccessful) for SHEs in a uranium target after it had been bombarded with Xe ions [85]. 

States today. In 1985, however, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (lUPAC) recommended an alternative system in which the columns are numbered 1 to 18 beginning on the left and without added letters. Although we use the original Mendeleev system in this text, the Periodic Table on the inside back cover of the text shows both. 

The most striking feature of the diffusion of Mendeleevs system in France is that his great achievement prompted no real debates, no controversy among French academic chemists. It is not that his work was totally ignored. Rather, it was integrated as a non-event in the daily work focused on the discovery and characterization of chemical elements thanks to new techniques (spectroscopy, crystallization, and so on). In science journals Mendeleev s system attracted attention only insofar as it could lead to the discovery of new chemical elements. ... 

L. Scandia, Scandinavia) On the basis of the Periodic System, Mendeleev predicted the existence of ekaboron, which would have an atomic weight between 40 of calcium and 48 of htanium. 

This system of nomenclature has withstood the impact of later experimental discoveries and theoretical developments that have since the time of Guyton de Morveau and Lavoisier greatiy altered the character of chemical thought, eg, atomic theory (Dalton, 1802), the hydrogen theory of acids (Davy, 1809), the duahstic theory (Berzehus, 1811), polybasic acids (Liebig, 1834), Periodic Table (Mendeleev and Meyer, 1869), electrolytic dissociation theory (Arrhenius, 1887), and electronic theory and modem knowledge of molecular stmcture. 

The periodicity in the oxidation state or valence shown by the elements was forcefully illustrated by Mendeleev in one of his early forms of the periodic system and this is shown in an extended form in Fig. 2.5 which incorporates more recent information. The predictive and interpolative powers of such a plot are obvious and have been a fruitful source of chemical experimentation for over a century. 

Of the remaining 26 undiscovered elements between hydrogen and uranium, 11 were lanthanoids which Mendeleev s system was unable to characterize because of their great chemical similarity and the new numerological feature dictated by the filling of the 4f orbitals. Only cerium, terbium and erbium were established with certainty in 1871, and the others (except promethium, 1945) were separated and identified in the period 1879 -1907. The isolation of the (unpredicted) noble gases also occurred at this time (1894-8). 

In the paper under discussion, which has subsequently been cited by a number of authors,17 Worrall and I argue that Mendeleev s ability to literally accommodate something like 60 elements into the periodic system, subject to a number of constraints, contributed at least as much, if not more, to the acceptance of the periodic table than did Mendeleev s famous successful predictions. 

What I hope to have added to the discussion has been a philosophical reflection on the nature of the concept of element and in particular an emphasis on elements in the sense of basic substances rather than just simple substances. The view of elements as basic substances, is one with a long history. The term is due to Fritz Paneth, the prominent twentieth century radio-chemist. This sense of the term element refers to the underlying reality that supports element-hood or is prior to the more familiar sense of an element as a simple substance. Elements as basic substances are said to have no properties as such although they act as the bearers of properties. I suppose one can think of it as a substratum for the elements. Moreover, as Paneth and before him Mendeleev among others stressed, it is elements as basic substances rather than as simple substances that are summarized by the periodic table of the elements. This notion can easily be appreciated when it is realized that carbon, for example, occurs in three main allotropes of diamond, graphite and buckminsterfullenes. But the element carbon, which takes its place in the periodic system, is none of these three simple substances but the more abstract concept of carbon as a basic substance. 

To understand how the electron has been applied to explanations of the periodic table we must start with the discovery of the periodic system itself. The Russian chemist Dimitri Mendeleev announced in 1869 that the properties of elements arranged in order of increasing atomic weight appeared to repeat after certain definite intervals. Yet even as this discovery became increasingly well established, Mendeleev remained strongly opposed to any attempt to reduce or explain the periodicity in terms of atomic structure. He resisted the notion of any form of primary matter, which was actively discussed by his contemporaries, and opposed... 

Mendeleev s reluctance toward reduction was not widely shared. One of the codiscoverers of the periodic system, the German Lothar Meyer, accepted the possibility of primary matter and supported Prouf s hypothesis. He was also happy to draw curves through numerical data, including his famous plot of atomic volumes that showed such remarkable periodicity that it helped in the acceptance of the periodic system. Nonetheless, prior to Thomson s discovery of the electron, no accepted model of atomic substructure existed to explain the periodic system, and the matter was still very much in dispute. 

Figure 2. Dimitri Mendeleev s discovery of the periodic system in 1869 was quickly followed by controversy over how it should be used, Mendeleev resisted reduction or explanation of the system in terms of atomic structure, and was specifically opposed to attempts to draw curves through points representing numerical data Lothar Meyer, who contributed to the discovery of the periodic system, was not so averse to reduction, however. One of his graphs, shown here in an 1870 publication, plotted atomic volume and was instrumental in the acceptance of the periodic system.

Taking a telescopic view of all these developments, we see an interesting turnabout regarding the periodic table. Over 125 years ago Mendeleev, probably the leading discoverer of the periodic system, refused to adopt a realis-... 

Arguably, however, Mendeleev s greatest achievement was not the periodic table so much as the recognition of the periodic system on which it was based. Of the nearly 1,000 variations that have been published since, all are attempts to represent the fundamental rule that after certain but varying intervals, the chemical elements show an approximate repetition in their properties. 

Notwithstanding these earlier scientists contributions to tire Idea of periodicity, Mendeleev remains the undisputed champion of the periodic system as a defender, propagator, and elaborater. Mendeleevas version of the periodic table left the greatest impact on the scientific community, both at the time it was produced and thereafter In the popular imagination the periodic system invariably and Justifiably connects to his name, to the same extent tltat the theory of evolution connects to Darwin s name and the tircory of relativity to Einstein s. But what really set Mendeleev s contrilm-tion apart ... 

Elements. By organizing the elements as he did. Mendeleev took a stand on the centuries-old question of the philosophical status of the elements. Unlike some of his contemporaries, Mendeleev reacted tire suggestion that the periodic system implied the existence of any form of primary matter of which all the... 

Many historians have examined in detail the path that Mendeleev took in arriving at his early periodic tables. It seems to be agreed that the first key document, which still exists, consists of a letter sent to Mendeleev. On the back of the letter Mendeleev sketched some rudimentary ideas on how best to arrange the elements into a coherent system. 

A similar activity is found in Mendeleevs first attempt at a periodic system as presented in a hand-written table. If one examines the calculations that he is carrying out one finds again an attempt to compute differences between the atomic weights of elements in the columns of his table. For example Mendeleev writes the number 27 in smaller writing below the symbols for potassium (Zn - K = 65 - 39 = 27) and again below rubidium (Cd-Rb = 112-85 = 27). 

But the periodic system is so fundamental, pervasive and familiar in the study of chemistry that it is often taken for granted. A century after the death of the leading discoverer of the periodic system, the Russian chemist Dimitri Mendeleev, it seems time to revisit the origins and modem status of this now-standard chemical classification. There were a number of historic precursors to Mendeleev s periodic system. But there are also current ongoing debates regarding the best way to display the periodic system, and whether there is really a "best way" of doing so. 

But what would become of Mendeleev s periodic system which now seemed to consist of 300 or so "elements" To some chemists, the discovery of isotopes implied the end of the periodic system as it was known.3 These chemists suggested that it would be necessary to consider the individual new isotopes as the new "elements." But the chemist Paneth adopted a less reductionist approach, arguing that the periodic table of the familiar chemical elements should be retained because it dealt with the "elements" that were of interest to chemists. A justification for this view was provided by the fact that, with a few exceptions, the chemical properties of isotopes of the same element are indistinguishable.4 Moreover, Paneth appealed to Mendeleev s distinction between the two senses of the concept of an "element" in order to provide a philosophical rationale for the retention of the chemist s periodic table. Paneth argued that the discovery of isotopes of the elements represents the discovery of new elements as simple substances, whereas periodic... 

Much more recently it has been suggested that the key to Mendeleev s success, when compared with his competitors like Lothar Meyer, lay precisely in the former s adherence to this philosophical distinction [17]. Even more recently some authors have suggested that the distinction might play a role in the question of the placement of the elements hydrogen and helium in the periodic system [6, 18].6... 

Bent claims that the periodic system should be primarily based on the structure of neutral atoms rather than on macroscopic properties of the elements. In doing so he claims support from none other than Mendeleev. Bent also claims to garner support from the writings of Mendeleev in steering clear of the properties of the elements as simple substances in crucial matters of classification of the elements. In fact, the identification of elements as basic substances with the atoms of the elements is... 

The problem is no longer the validity of Mendeleev s system, but the best way to represent it. Should it be the original short-form table with 8 columns, the familiar medium-long form with 18 columns, or perhaps even a long-form table with 32 columns, which more naturally accommodates the rare earth elements Into the main body of the table Altanahvely, some favor pyramidal tables, while others advocate the left-step form proposed by diaries Janet in the 1920s. Theodor Benfey and rhilip Stewart have proposed continuous spiral models. Hundreds, possibly even thousands, of periodic systems have been proposed, and each has its ardent supporters. 

New scientific methods (e.g. electrolysis) allowed the veteran elements to be joined stepwise by more and more unknown and unexpected substances that fulfilled the criteria for an element. In 1869, after many attempts to bring order into the growing chaos, Dimitri Mendeleev revealed a daring concept with his Periodic Table and its predictions. Each of the then known elements was assigned a place. The gaps represented elements that were not yet known. The discoveries of such elements proved that there was an order and system to the elements. This order explained much that was previously puzzling, for instance, the different atomic radii observed that same year by Julius Lothar Meyer, which seemed to follow a periodic trend. 

---