IUPAC Periodic Table (1-18) Numbering System

[JC_TheCreation]

What Element Data does the (1-18) Standard Periodic Table numbering Correspond to? 

Also, why are the "Rare Earth" Elements always excluded from this numbering system? 

In my Chemistry Textbooks it just says, "to Save Paper Space" but that doesn't seem like a very scientific reason to remove the Lanthanides and Actinides from their correct positions and exclude them from the numbering as the Standard. 

 

[swansont]

24 minutes ago, JC_TheCreation said:

What Element Data does the (1-18) Standard Periodic Table numbering Correspond to? 

I don’t understand the question. It’s the column number. 

24 minutes ago, JC_TheCreation said:

Also, why are the "Rare Earth" Elements always excluded from this numbering system? 

The actinides and lanthanides require an addition dimension, as it were, because you are now filling an additional shell. Or a much wider table, since you’d need 14 more columns, that would apply to only 2 rows.

24 minutes ago, JC_TheCreation said:

In my Chemistry Textbooks it just says, "to Save Paper Space" but that doesn't seem like a very scientific reason to remove the Lanthanides and Actinides from their correct positions and exclude them from the numbering as the Standard. 

What is their “correct” position? 

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, JC_TheCreation said:

What Element Data does the (1-18) Standard Periodic Table numbering Correspond to? 

Also, why are the "Rare Earth" Elements always excluded from this numbering system? 

In my Chemistry Textbooks it just says, "to Save Paper Space" but that doesn't seem like a very scientific reason to remove the Lanthanides and Actinides from their correct positions and exclude them from the numbering as the Standard. 

 

 

They are not kept out, the full table is unweildy, the standard version includes the rare earths in a more compact way and appear in your table.

There is a comprehensive discussion and link about this on Quora.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-lanthanides-and-actinides-are-kept-out-of-the-periodic-table

which also offers  the  full table

[JC_TheCreation]

In order for the Periodic System to be a true Universal Language of Science, the primary organizing principle must be the 4 Quantum Numbers and not any Element behavior or properties.  Element behavior can change drastically based on conditions such as temperature and pressure whereas the Quantum Numbers are universal.  Also, behavior of the Elements is often a function of the Numbers and therefore the Quantum numbers are more fundamental than any Element behavior or property.  The devil is in the details and with a System and discovery as important, influential and powerful as the Periodic Table, we must strive to be as accurate as possible when teaching it to the next generation of students. 

It is fairly simple to prove which Periodic Table System and arrangement is the best by simply counting and listing the number of accurate, useful and complete Element data points that can be extracted by the user at a glance. The Genesis System of Atoms (Primary Arrangement) provides more accurate and complete Element data than any other Periodic Table System currently available. It displays a complete and accurate numbering system that corresponds to the 4 Stable Bonding Rules of Chemistry, 2-8-18-32. 

 

Breaking the Periodic Table to "Save Paper Space" is no longer a valid reason as we are shifting more and more away from books to widescreen monitors.  Now is the perfect time to make the "Wide", correct arrangement of the Elements the Standard.  These arrangements provide measurably more accurate, useful and complete Element data than the Standard.  All 4 Quantum Numbers for any Element can be extracted from this system and arrangement without having to reference any separate charts. 

Secondary Arrangement

[exchemist]

21 minutes ago, JC_TheCreation said:

In order for the Periodic System to be a true Universal Language of Science, the primary organizing principle must be the 4 Quantum Numbers and not any Element behavior or properties.  Element behavior can change drastically based on conditions such as temperature and pressure whereas the Quantum Numbers are universal.  Also, behavior of the Elements is often a function of the Numbers and therefore the Quantum numbers are more fundamental than any Element behavior or property.  The devil is in the details and with a System and discovery as important, influential and powerful as the Periodic Table, we must strive to be as accurate as possible when teaching it to the next generation of students. 

It is fairly simple to prove which Periodic Table System and arrangement is the best by simply counting and listing the number of accurate, useful and complete Element data points that can be extracted by the user at a glance. The Genesis System of Atoms (Primary Arrangement) provides more accurate and complete Element data than any other Periodic Table System currently available. It displays a complete and accurate numbering system that corresponds to the 4 Stable Bonding Rules of Chemistry, 2-8-18-32. 

 

Breaking the Periodic Table to "Save Paper Space" is no longer a valid reason as we are shifting more and more away from books to widescreen monitors.  Now is the perfect time to make the "Wide", correct arrangement of the Elements the Standard.  These arrangements provide measurably more accurate, useful and complete Element data than the Standard.  All 4 Quantum Numbers for any Element can be extracted from this system and arrangement without having to reference any separate charts. 

Secondary Arrangement

Is that it, then? All this fuss, just to argue for inserting the f block in between the s and d blocks - which any chemist already knows is where it fits?

Or is there any more to this?