Periodic table/system

Table 1 presents a chronological listing of proposed periodic systems. Table 1 lists features that distinguish each system, the numbers of atoms in the molecules included, and the dimensionalities of the spaces in which the systems are built. 

Based on such initial statements and assumptions the value of Pg-parameter was calculated (and by the Eq. (4.12) for the majority of elements in periodic system—Table 4.4. The values of covalent, atom and ion radii are basically taken by Belov-Bokiy and partially by Batsanov [20]. 

E. G. Mazur.S, Graphic Representation of the Periodic System during One Hundred Years, University of Alabama Press. Alabama, 1974. An exhaustive topological classification of over 700 forms of the periodic table. 

One final comment on this first paper is that I recommended the use of many tables and suggested that no one table was better than others. This is something that I no longer believe. According to a realistic interpretation, the periodic system is referring to some objective relationship among the elements that exists in nature and is not the result of mere human construction. I believe that it does therefore make perfect sense to be seeking an optimal periodic system in the sense of one that most closely reveals the precise periodic relationship between as many elements as possible.8... 

In case the general reader might be wondering about the connection between atomic orbitals and the periodic table, let me address this issue briefly. As mentioned above, in the case of the first paper, the modern explanation for the periodic table is based entirely on the orbital model. It is only by ignoring the approximate nature of the model that the explanation for the periodic system might appear to be full and complete. 

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. 

W. H. E. Schwarz, Towards a Physical Explanation of the Periodic Table (PT) of Chemical Elements, in Fundamental World of Quantum Chemistry A Tribute to Per-Olov Lowdin, Vol. 3, E. Brandas, E. Kryachko (eds.), Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 645-669, 2004. Also see S.-G. Wang, W. H. E. Schwarz, Icon of Chemistry The Periodic System of Chemical Elements in the New Century, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2009 (in press). 

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... 

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-... 

But I want to return to my claim that quantum mechanics does not really explain the fact that the third row contains 18 elements to take one example. The development of the first of the period from potassium to krypton is not due to the successive filling of 3s, 3p and 3d electrons but due to the filling of 4s, 3d and 4p. It just so happens that both of these sets of orbitals are filled by a total of 18 electrons. This coincidence is what gives the common explanation its apparent credence in this and later periods of the periodic table. As a consequence the explanation for the form of the periodic system in terms of how the quantum numbers are related is semi-empirical, since the order of orbital filling is obtained form experimental data. This is really the essence of Lowdin s quoted remark about the (n + , n) rule. 

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 ... 

Electrons. If the discovery of isotopes threatened ro undermine the periodic system, the discovery of the electron explained many of the periodic properties on which the table was based. J. J. Thomson attempted to explain the periodic system by postulating rings of electrons embedded in the positive charge that made up his phim pudding model of the atom. Thomson s model was quickly superseded by more sophisticated and elaborate mod-... 

However, one aspect, having to do with triads of elements, is troubling in this otherwise elegant left-step periodic system. The use of the left-step table results in the loss of a triad involving helium, neon, and argon. 

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). 

As suggested in the title of the present article, we believe that the periodic table, which initially arose from the discovery of atomic weight triads, can now be further enhanced by recognizing the fundamental importance of atomic number triads. In addition one should recognize the more fundamental nature of the elements as basic substances rather than as simple substances, and that the periodic system is primarily a classification of the former. Whereas we previously suggested that these aims were best served by the left-step table we now favor the revised left-step table shown in Figure 3. 

The periodic system of elements gets its moniker because it graphs how certain properties of chemicals repeat after regular intervals. In the modem table of 117 elements, each is placed across rows in order of increasing atomic number—the number of protons in the nucleus of one atom of each element. There are seven rows, each... 

Consequently, they maintain that some displays of the periodic system may, in truth, be superior to others. Whereas the conventionally displayed table, called the medium-long form, has many virtues, it places helium among the noble-gas elements. Some have argued that in spite of appearances, helium should in fact be placed el the head of group 2, the alkaline earth group, which includes beryllium, magnesium and calcium. Helium has two outer-shell electrons as do the elements in the alkaline earth group. 

Another design thift Philip Stewart of the University of Oxford has revived and argued for is toe spud-form periodic system, and it hs received a good deal of recent attention. As Stewart contends, the conventional table fails to emphasize the continuity in toe sequence of the dementi Spiral systems stress continuity rather than implying breaks between the noble gright-hand edge and the alkali metals at the left edge. 

ABSTRACT This article concerns various foundational aspects of the periodic system of the elements. These issues include the dual nature of the concept of an "element" to include element as a "basic substance" and as a "simple substance." We will discuss the question of whether there is an optimal form of the periodic table, including whether the left-step table fulfils this role. We will also discuss the derivation or explanation of the [n + , n] or Madelung rule for electron-shell filling and whether indeed it is important to attempt to derive this rule from first principles. In particular, we examine the views of two chemists, Henry Bent and Eugen Schwarz, who have independently addressed many of these issues. 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Quantum Chem 109 959-971, 2009... 

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... 

It should also be said that the reason why Bent and Weinhold devote such attention to the n + ( rule is that, as mentioned earlier, the rule is clearly represented on the left-step table, the form of the periodic table that they favor. In addition, as was mentioned, the authors believe that the best representation of the periodic system should be based on the electronic structure of the neutral atoms of all the elements and not on their macroscopic properties. 

This book contains key articles by Eric Sc erri, the leading authority on the history and philosophy of the periodic table of the elements and the author of a best-selling book on the subject. The articles explore a range of topics such as the historical evolution of the periodic system as well as its philosophical status and its relationship to modern quan um physics. This volume contains some in-depth research papers from journals in history and philosophy of science, as well as quantum chemistry. Other articles are from more accessible magazines like American Scientist. The author has also provided an extensive new introduction in orck rto integrate this work covering a pc riocl of two decades.This must-have publication is completely unique as there is nothing of this form currently available on the market. 

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. 

---