Vts

Thanks for support, Hermanntrude. I should have also included link to the Janet's LSPT. I belong to a group of people who believe that the Periodic Table should be based on Electron Configurations. That is why I started this thread. I'm completing it by asking to forgive my obsession.

Well, La for example does not even have f-electron. How can we put it in f-block? I think, I found good answer to that question that has two parts: First, we make sure that continuity of atomic numbers Z is preserved, that is (56)Ba precedes (57)La that is followed by (58)Ce, etc; Second, we break the sequence of the elements in accordance with value of (n+l) of newly added electron: for Ba n+l=6, for La n+l=7, so is for Ce n+l=7. The break should be between Ba and La, where "n+l" changes to a higher value. Not between La and Ce, as was shown in older periodic tables. Therefore, 7th period naturally starts with La, despite the absence of f-electron. One might ask why was "n+l" rule chosen for braking the sequence of the elements in periods? Well, because it was empirically determined that electrons generally follow "n+l" order when they take their places around the nucleus (and also vacate their places during ionization). So, it is quite logical to suggest that new period should start with the element that has newly added electron reaching new high "n+l" value. That what makes Janet's LSPT and its recent offspring ADOMAH PT objectively unique.

Well, it is true only to a certain extent. As reported recently in Science News, group of scientists in Switzerland have determined that element 114 acts more like a noble gas, not as Pb. There are other mysterious relationships, such as Knight move, for example. Therefore, if we look simply at the properties, we could break up the sequence in many different ways. I think that the only correct way is to sort elements by spdf blocks. And, since it is the most logical way, the blocks should be placed in correct order, that is spdf, in accordance with the quantum number "l=0,1,2,3...", no sfdp (l=0,3,2,1) order, as in traditional table.

Would it be correct to say then that traditional PT is constructed on the basis of physical properties of elements? Dmitri Mendeleev has warned that properties of the elements should not be a basis for the Periodic Table since they may vary a great deal under the influence of the environmental conditions, such as temperature and pressure. Helium supposedly acts as a metal in the cores of large planets, such as jupiter, etc. Therefore, our Periodic table would take a different form, if we would live on a different planet.

Someone asked me recently: What is the basic principle behind the layout of the traditional Periodic Table? I can not answer this question in one short sentence. Can you?

You can find all sorts of periodic table formulations HERE. It is quite interesting. Check it out!

I agree with you, guys. I am just stating the fact that polygon with 90 sides is the closest to 22:7 perimeter to diameter ratio than any other polygon. I have no idea if it means anything in physical reality. Perhaps it does. I just recently found direct connection of regular tetrahedron and the tetrahedral close sphere packing to the quantum numbers n, l and ml. Sometimes it pays off to look closely at coincidences.You can check it out at my web site.

If space is not continuous, then, physically, there is no such thing as a circle. Circle is just an approximation of a polygon. It could be said that equilateral triangle, square, pentagon..., are just approximations of a circle. Therefore, what we know as "pi" is a ratio of perimeter of a polygon with infinite number of sides to the distance between the opposite sides (in case of even number of sides), or diameter of hypothetical circle that is inscribed in such polygon. But from the physics we know that there is a limit. Somewhere around the Plank's constant. Therefore, the minimum size of a polygon's side is defined. Now, the question is how many sides such polygon has? Is it it is infinity? In quantum realm threre are such numbers as 1, 2, 3, 4..., that we call integers. If we take a polygon that would be chacterized by integers only in all directions? Perhaps, 90, 22 and 7 are those integers. Just a thought.

Actually, if I remember it correctly, 22/7 ratio is the ratio of perimeter of the polygon with 90 straight sides to the maximum distance between the sides. That is, if polygon with 90 sides is circumscribed around a circle with diameter equal to d=7, its perimeter would be equal to 22.00008478.

That is nice. Thanks. Unfortunately, not all symbols are there. The symbols for ceiling and floor functions that I need are not included on that web page. I used floor(n/2) for now, but would like to change to the symbol one day. Is there HTML code for floor and ceiling functionn symbols?

Thank you very much ! Where can I find all Math symbols, along with the examples? Is there an Internet site that has them?

Question 1: If, for example, I have a sequence n=1,2,3, 5.... and I have to divide this sequence by 2, that is n/2=0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5...., but in my next formula I have to use only whole parts of the results: n/2(whole)= 0, 1, 1, 2, 2,... Is there a mathematical symbol for such expression ? I tried few web sites, including the Wikipedia, but was not able to find one. Question 2: Is there mathematical symbol for rounded numbers? Please, help !

Well, it does those too. I am not against other formulations. Each one shows some things better than other. My view is that the superiority is in reflecting the nature of the elements the best way possible and the electron configurations should take precedence over all other things, which are just derivatives.

:-)To my critics: Please go to ADOMAH userguide. It is good illustration of total superiority of ADOMAH PT over any other formulation. Can IUPAC periodic table be used to derive electron configurations directly (without mnemonic diagram, memorizing stuff, etc)? Can any other periodic table be used for direct determination of the electron configurations in such fashion? Let me know if you find one!

I strongly believe that there should be a naturally occurring super heavy element, but that would be most likely element 120 and there are few reason for that: According to a nuclear shell theory the nucleus of the element 120 would be the most "round" one. It is in the island of stability. Also, in his late articles, Janet, the author of Left Step Periodic table uses mathematical justification for the Periodic System with total of 120 elements max. And finally, the periodic system built strictly in accordance with the quantum numbers would perfectly fit into the tetrahedron with the edge of 9 units, where one unit is determined by the quantum number "ml", that represents pair of electrons. It is possible that elements with heavier nuclei exist, but they would not be naturally occurring. On the other side, the naturally occurring element 120 would be nice punctuation mark in the Periodic System. The team of scientists that traced the element in question, determined its mass 292, but, in regard to the number of protons, they were not sure. They said that it is about 122. So, it could be element 124, or 120!

I agree that for the purposes of teaching students to derive electronic configurations ADOMAH PT is, probably, the easiest. However, 3D Mnemonic shows clearly the relationship between the quantum numbers "n", "l" and "ml". It makes it absolutely clear why there are no elements with the ground state electrons in the areas that are typically shaded in 2D mnemonics (such as 5g, for example) and it provides mathematical justification for the Madelung rule, which, as it was recently found, follows the same order as the tetrahedral close sphere packing. Therefore, I think, 3D mnemonic would be more useful for teaching quantum theory.

Typically mnemonic diagrams, that show the order of filling of orbitals, are two dimensional. One of two dimensions is quantum number n=1, 2, 3... and the other is quantum number l=0,1,2,3, just as shown here: I'd like to share with you new, three dimensional diagram, where the third dimension shows magnetic quantum number "ml", in addition to "n" and "l": 3D Mnemonic Diagram. 3D diagram illustrates well how all three quantum numbers are interconnected in a single geometric construction known in mathematics as the tetrahedral close sphere packing. (Do not forget to scroll up and down, when visiting that web page, there are few interesting images there.)

Because the belief that the Universe, with all its complexity, stems from one principle, or one formula, is by itself idealistic. I understand that role of a scientist is to observe and to say it as it is, not to engage in a search for explanation of "everything" based on the idea that there is one unifying principle. Although I realize that such idea makes us look for something and, while we are looking, we make discoveries.

Why are scientists even trying to find unifying theory? Wouldn't it imply that Universe is unique, based on a single idea, that is created?

Yes, Block 'g' also fits the same pattern beginning with element No. 121. Only it would make ADOMAH PT 18 elements (or 9 units) taller. You are absolutely right. There is the relationship of the sizes of the sub shells to the size of the tetrahedron. The tetrahedron shown on http://www.perfectperiodictable.com site has edge equal to 9 units. Therefore, there could be only 4 rectangles possible (if only prime numbers are used): 1x8 (s-block), 3x6 (p-block), 5x4(d-block) and 7x2(f-block). There could be no other rectangles possible, given that only prime numbers are used. (green slices also assume the same dimensions if the tetrahedron edge is odd number, only in opposite order). Now, try to make edge of the tetrahedron E=10 units long. We would have following combinations, for "red" slices (spaced 2 units appart as measured along the edges): 1x9 (s-block), 3x7 (p-block), 5x5(d-block), 7x3(f-block) and 9x1(g-block), These are the "red layers", representing the blocks. The green layers would be 8x2, 6x4, 4x6 and 2x8 (just spacers, or matrix, or, perhaps the neutrons within the nucleus). You can see that g-block is 18 elements long (where 1 unit is a pair of elements). If edge is E=11 units, then red layers would be: 1x10 (s-block), 3x8(p), 5x6(d), 7x4(f) and 9x2(block-g, 18 element tall, total of 36 elemets). Therefore, if tetrahedron has edge "E" and rectangles have sides "a" and "b", where side "a" is always odd and "b" can be either even or odd, the dimensions of the subshell blocks follow rule: a + b = E (using only prime numbers). Number of slices, or sub shells: NOS = E/2 with no reminder. All other blocks, such as 'h', 'i', 'j' ... can also be derived in the same manner by making tetrahedron edge E = 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... units. This is not a coincidence: The Periodic Law can be completely understood in terms of the tetrahedral geometry.

Check out ADOMAH PT, the only periodic table that allows direct reading of the primary quantum number "n" for all periods and strictly follows all four quantum numbers n, l, ml and ms, as well as the Madelung Rule: http://www.perfectperiodictable.com While there, please click on "3D Concept" and the "User's Guide". It is quite revealing ! P.S. It is also listed at http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt.html#ADOMAH among other most interesting formulations.

Last time I checked inert gas He had both electrons in "s" block, just where Be-Ra have their last two electrons. I strongly recommend to read "New Ideas in Chemistry from Fresh Energy for the Periodic Law": by Dr. Henry Bent where he gives 57 reasons for placing He with Be-Ra, rather then with inert gases. I am not even going to respond to the rest of the John's post, because by now, every one who read all posts on this thread and visited http://www.perfectperiodictable.com can form his or her own opinion. I recently received a note from Nobel Prize winner Dr. Roald Hoffmann where he said that he likes my table and one of the Universities asked for my permission to allow them to include ADOMAH in the new textbook about the Periodic Table that is in process of being written. Is it really so "silly" as John put it? I know that you will hear more about ADOMAH ! All the best and thanks for your attention.

I am not into tactics. I was confused because it seemed to me as one of your statements contradicted the other. Now it is clear that you'd prefer to call it a "pattern". That is perfectly fine with me. Either way, I found something. I think that those who know next to nothing wouldn't be even surprised.

Could be a spiral too. If the periods were not related to the nuclei, then it would be no reason to begin each period with the element that has atomic number Z greater by one unit than the element at the end of the previous period. Instead of one periodic system we (here I used word "we" again) would have series of unrelated to each other sequences of the elements and ions of some elements would have to be included with ions of other, unrelated elements, just because they would have same number of electrons. What a mess we would have on our hands, if we follow your logic! ADOMAH PT is the only periodic table that reflects all four quantum numbers (n, l, ml and ms), it has natural limits and lengths of the periods and allows direct readout of the primary quantum number "n". If you call it "artistic", it is fine with me. Afterall, the art quite often is used to describe the nature. Below is a copy of email that I received form Dr. Henry Bent, prominent chemist and educator: .You can read rest of his email at http://www.perfectperiodictable.com