Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Graphical Representation of the Periodic Table

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the thulium-and-thalium dept.

Science 140

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."

cancel ×

140 comments

Huh (4, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663041)

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

Re:Huh (3, Informative)

TheGreatOrangePeel (618581) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663745)

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

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Huh (4, Informative)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663875)

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

Re:Huh (1)

sillybilly (668960) | more than 4 years ago | (#29665689)

Yeah, at least in that Longman version Be and B (beryllium and boron) are close together, unlike in the table described in the article.

Re:Huh (3, Funny)

ioshhdflwuegfh (1067182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664043)

Dude, it's a dart board.

Call me a cynic.. (5, Insightful)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663051)

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.. (1)

Lunoria (1496339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663143)

Management always wants changes. If it isn't broken, is a good enough reason to improve it. The new design is horrible though.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663219)

The only thing management is good at changing are pretty colored charts. [dougbelshaw.com]

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663421)

Wouldn't that make them good at this?

Anyways the one linked is terribad. I'm sure we can do much much better representing a bunch of data at once. This is missing all kinds of info that is available on a modern periodic table.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

dsginter (104154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663169)

that design doesn't look much better than the current one

Sure it does - it gives you scale. I, for one, never spent the time required to appreciate the differences in scale. So this new graphical representation provided me with an immediate and intuitive grasp on the situation. Sure - the numbers are there. But I never really thought about them beyond being a number (I'm sure that non-chemists can appreciate and forgive this ignorance).

And the gaps create an immediate sense of wonder. I think wonder is only a good thing (perhaps something that is missing from today's youth).

Re:Call me a cynic.. (3, Insightful)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663259)

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.. (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663545)

That is just changed to down = outwards, right = counter-clockwise (starting from the bottom center). But they didn't show the 'staircase' and their colouring scheme is completely useless providing no additional information. So it is shittier than the standard periodic table [ptable.com] and provides no new information. I think one thing we COULD do is use an ap like Seadragon [livelabs.com] to include much more information in the table. Obviously only doable with computers of course.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

xOneca (1271886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663869)

an ap like Seadragon

Isn't that an app that zooms in and out like in Google Maps?

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

ioshhdflwuegfh (1067182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664089)

[...] I think not.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

dsginter (104154) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664157)

Should we throw away all that usefulness in the name of "fresh" and "new" ideas?

Who suggested that we throw anything away?

I think that this is a good supplement that open the minds of people who might not grok the scale illustrated non-graphically by the canonical chart.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664483)

I don't know if they're calling for throwing the old tables away, just for adding new potentially interesting ways of seeing the same thing.

The genius of the periodic table is that people were unable to find a satisfying pattern to elements before, and with this table suddenly everything just clicked into place. Just having a pattern provided a lot of insight. Today though, a lot of students just take this table for granted as something they have to memorize without realizing what a great tool it was. Having an alternate view of the elements at least encourages some more critical thinking.

I was never good at chemistry in college, but the lecture I remember most was when the prof had all the elements written out on toilet paper serially, then tearing at some perforated lines showed how they could be rearranged so that it made more sense.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664667)

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

You say that now, but wait until you hear the Kanye West mix!

Re:Call me a cynic.. (5, Informative)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663561)

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.. (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664033)

Indeed... that's the first thing I noticed. Also, how is having so much of the text upside down or sideways a good idea?

Re:Call me a cynic.. (4, Interesting)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663887)

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.. (1)

ioshhdflwuegfh (1067182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663995)

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

While some other people comprehend things more efficiently when the information is supplied in a context that is comfortable to them.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664295)

Yeah, yeah. Cough-syrup soaked syntax.

The Swine Flu made me do it.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (4, Insightful)

residieu (577863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664703)

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.. (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29665975)

I agree. And even better is how the author writes:

That's worthy but flawed. 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.

Is it really that hard to print the circular table with all the letters in the same upright orientation so it can be read without turning the page? Durrrrr!

"this gives a sense of the relative size of atoms" (0, Troll)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663389)

Um.... that's the one thing it totally *fails* to do. It's LESS clear on that one than the current "the ones at the bottom are bigger".

The guy's obviously an idiot with too much time on his hands.

Re:"this gives a sense of the relative size of ato (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663493)

The guy's obviously an idiot with too much time on his hands.

Now now, put you claws away kitty, just because it doesn't make sense to one person doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to everyone. Some people might benefit from this, although I must admit that I don't find it better than what I used in school. If it helps anyone, great, if not, it's no reason to really slam it that much is it?

Re:"this gives a sense of the relative size of ato (1)

ElektronSpinRezonans (1397787) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663825)

No one benefits from learning a confusing (and some parts plainly nonsense) representation of an academically accepted knowledge. To say the least, an 8th grader could have written this. The original paper is not peer reviewed, submitted by an author who works at Microsoft India (as he claims since there's no way to check), with a proud hotmail email address, and 8 references... Why is this posted on /. again? Oh yes, nice colors!

Re:"this gives a sense of the relative size of ato (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29665631)

I wonder what have you been reading!

"He says this gives a sense of the relative size of atoms--the closer to the centre, the smaller they are--something that is missing from the current form of the table. "

You're a cynic! :p ;) (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663437)

I think it needs work, but I think the fundamental idea is sound. The chemical properties of the elements are almost entirely based on how full the electron shells are, and I think a circular diagram represents that better. This particular representation is far from ideal (it's silly to have the names sideways and upside-down, among many other flaws), but as an abstract concept, I like it.

Re:You're a cynic! :p ;) (2, Insightful)

LotsOfPhil (982823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663523)

The chemical properties of the elements are almost entirely based on how full the electron shells are, and I think a circular diagram represents that better.

Concentric circles don't show that any better than rows do. What rows do better is clearly indicate that the shells get filled in a certain order (left to right). Looking at the circle table, which has more electrons, Li or Ne? F or Ne? Is that intuitive or better?

Re:You're a cynic! :p ;) (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664027)

Concentric circles don't show that any better than rows do.

They do for me. When I first encountered the periodic table, way back when, I found it very confusing until I constructed a mental model a lot more like the proposed one.

Gradients could be used to indicate the direction in which the shells get filled, with pale colors to represent emptier shells and darker ones for full. I'm not saying the idea is perfect (maybe there is no perfect representation), but I think the idea is well worth exploring. I also think the standard representation is strongly counterintuitive in some ways. Maybe it will turn out that it's the best we can do, but I see no harm in trying out some alternatives.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663503)

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that the picture at the top is the 'new' design that the article. Other than the circular layout, that table doesn't seem to really change anything. Farther down there is a different table that seems to be grouped differently (or more explicitly?) than the standard Mendelev table.

Re:Call me a cynic.. (4, Interesting)

annodomini (544503) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663517)

I like this one [wikipedia.org] 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.. (1)

statusbar (314703) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664605)

Thanks for the link.

I wonder how these charts would represent the Island of Stability [wikipedia.org] ?

--jeffk++

Re:Call me a cynic.. (4, Informative)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#29666225)

In [republika.pl] whatever [perfectperiodictable.com] way [superliminal.com] you [periodicspiral.com] present [rotaperiod.com] it, natures elements are messed up ;-)

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

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

Microsoft research (4, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663089)

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

Still not right (5, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663115)

If you're gonna go and change it, why not make it correct [cslacker.com] while you're at it?

Teach the controversy, people!

Re:Still not right (3, Interesting)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664093)

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 [mayanperiodic.com] 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.

not new (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663131)

There were circular based tables that competed with Mendeleev, and some spiral based ones as well. They had problems with the rare earths, as does this one - they are in their own arc and only understood by colour.

I like it though - it's pretty.

RS

Re:not new (3, Informative)

MaggieL (10193) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663445)

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 [meta-synthesis.com]

Re:not new (2, Informative)

Thoguth (203384) | more than 4 years ago | (#29665965)

The really interesting table on that site is this one:
http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=35 [meta-synthesis.com]
Which is labeled "Wikipedia table" and dated 2006 ... Did Mohd rip off Wikipedia?

Fortunately for him, wikipedia's history traces back to this revision [wikipedia.org] which was apparently made by Mohd Abubuakr himself, back in August 2006. He was in school at the time, at Jawaharlal Nehru Tech [linkedin.com] . According to his LinkedIn profile, he's not so much a green field researcher as he is a techie ... Performance and Security consulting. The article is a little misleading ... makes it sound like MS research has a skunk works in Hyderabad trying to invent a new periodic table.

His blog is cute too. A little emo, a little egotistical, but seems like a nice guy. I wonder what his /. handle is.

Re:not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29665971)

Actually, it's from one of their programmers [linkedin.com] . MSR has nothing to do with it.

Screen rotation problem? (3, Funny)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663133)

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?

Re:Screen rotation problem? (2, Funny)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663309)

Netbook. That leaves the tricky textbook rotation puzzle...

Re:Screen rotation problem? (1)

MollyB (162595) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663377)

Indeed, the first comment following FTA:

Just reorient the lettering of the circular table to improve readability. No need to rotate it.
Rate this comment: 12345
(Reply)

FTA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29663533)

Oops, Senior Moment.

Re:Screen rotation problem? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663943)

Display it using Adobe Flash, or, this being Microsoft, Silverlight. Then you can drag it round on the screen.

Re:Screen rotation problem? (1)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664915)

Please, can somebody find a solution to this important screen rotation problem?

Part solution My RADIUS PIVOT can turn 90 degrees

*Tries*

Scratch that

Re:Screen rotation problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29666017)

OR just learn to read things in more than one orientation. it isn't that hard people.

Abstract concept gets abstract explanation chart (1)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663139)

Part of what's nice about the current periodic table is that it's totally squared off. Even if it should wrap around in places, that information should be conveyed in words of symbols, rather than warping the entire thing into some odd shape.

The second image on the linked page, the one that shows the new layout in grid form? That's the one they should use if it's really more helpful that the current setup.

Re:Abstract concept gets abstract explanation char (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663321)

I think that was the point of the article - that the circular one was useless, but the group theory-based one might actually have predictive power.

Re:Abstract concept gets abstract explanation char (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664349)

I think that was the point of the article - that the circular one was useless, but the group theory-based one might actually have predictive power.

Article says that even the designer of the group theory based one doesn't know if it has any predictive power.

Which makes me doubt seriously that it'll ever be worthwhile - comes across as back of the napkin engineering, not a real effort at improvement.

Re:Abstract concept gets abstract explanation char (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664561)

I do all my engineering on the back of a napkin, you insensitive clod!

this has been going on for some time (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663145)

To quote a history book [amazon.com] (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.

thanks a lot (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663651)

you just gave dan brown the major plot point for his next robert langdon symbologist novel

Re:this has been going on for some time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29664317)

I know, I saw this coming from a mile away. There's no element of surprise at all. Totally periodictable.

seems familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29663147)

I see the picture and only I can think about Las Vegas

change (1)

mikey177 (1426171) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663175)

great i spent all of high school remembering this dam thing and now they want to change it. what a great idea it is to go from looking at in from one direction spread out to now turn it around in every direction just to see what you are looking at. .... just looking at it is giving me a migraine

Spiral Form (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663177)

Wouldn't the circular version of the periodic table be better represented as a spiral to reflect continuity in sizes?

Re:Spiral Form (4, Informative)

tpjunkie (911544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663287)

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...

Re:Spiral Form (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663383)

Lol you could put them REALLY out of order in any useful sense by arranging them by size.

Re:Spiral Form (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663679)

The size actually decreases across the period, due to the higher charge on the nucleus, then the next period is a step larger as electrons start to occupy a higher energy shell.
 
I thought it would be cool to see this graphically represented, but all they've done is convert our old cartesian table into a polar table.
 
No lanthanides, less space than a Mendeleevian table, lame.

Re:Spiral Form (1)

ioshhdflwuegfh (1067182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664257)

Wouldn't the circular version of the periodic table be better represented as a spiral to reflect continuity in sizes?

No, it wouldn't.

Another harebrained idea from MSR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29663249)

Keep 'em coming!

SVG or other vector graphics available? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663251)

Yeah... that's what I'm asking... no need to elaborate.

Microsoft Research? (1)

ckhorne (940312) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663269)

"So why change it? According to Mohd Abubakr from Microsoft Research in Hyderabad"

So... why is Microsoft interested in something like this? I can understand MS doing research in a number of fields for the sake of research itself, but paying some guy to come up with yet another periodic table?

Re:Microsoft Research? (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663939)

why is Microsoft interested in something like this?

Appears Microsoft is up to their old tricks again. First, they patent binary [theonion.com] , next, patent all the elements, so even if Windows gets the death it so richly deserves, PC makers, including Apple, will forever have to pay them for the silicon, gallium, silver, gold, et al. licensing.

Re:Microsoft Research? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29664789)

Embrace...Extend...Extinguish

Why stop there (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663273)

Instead of leaving the lanthanoids and actinoids in separate groups, why don't they merge them into the appropriate circles?
Anyway, it's still a stupid idea. It gives no more information than the current configuration, and places atoms together (the ends of the current rows) which causes a big jump in number of electrons between the two elements. And if you were going to base this on the size, shouldn't you adjust the boxes up/down based on their actual size instead of putting them together? I don't think that all the atoms in a row are exactly the same size.

Re:Why stop there (1)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663683)

I also like how the current model fits nicely with spdf orbital groupings.

Re:Why stop there (1)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663941)

There really isn't a way to integrate the lanthanoids and the actinoids into their expected circles; due to poor effective nuclear shielding from the f orbital electrons, they have smaller atomic radii than would be expected, and so their insertion would break the trends of the rest of the table. Overall, basing a periodic table on periodicity of atomic radii has some serious problems- there are trends, but not rules. There aren't precise values for atomic radii anyway- the measured values have big error bars, and only have reasonable agreement with calculated values (which vary by which set of quantum mechanical approximations were used). The standard periodic table arranges by atomic number and electron configuration, both of which are unique to each element, and both of which carry substantial predictive attributes in their periodicity.

My stoner buddy... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29663285)

My stoner buddy just looked over my shoulder at the image in TFA

Woah, do you see those rings, dude? Thats pretty heavy stuff man!

I turned around to him and said "Only those outer rings".

He gave me a blank look back.

Re:My stoner buddy... (1)

ioshhdflwuegfh (1067182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664275)

Well at least now we know what it is for.

This is awful (1)

kybur (1002682) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663301)

I don't want to bash it just because it was designed by a Microsoft scientist, but...

A circle is really hard to read and jumping away from the center and then counterclockwise to get to the next "row" is wacky. If you can't read the numbers very well, you won't be able to tell what order the elements are in.

Won't it look nice on a Zune HD (chemistry edition) though?

Circle table is bad (2, Insightful)

LotsOfPhil (982823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663305)

the table can be improved by arranging it in circular form. He says this gives a sense of the relative size of atoms--the closer to the centre, the smaller they are--something that is missing from the current form of the table. ... And by placing hydrogen and helium near the centre, Abubakr says this solves the problem of whether to put hydrogen with the halogens or alkali metals and of whther to put helium in the 2nd group or with the inert gases.

The atom size thing is no more present in the circular table than in the normal table. If distance from the center correlates with size, then Li and Ne are the same size according to the circular table. Lithium is about twice as big.

As for the H/He placement, helium is a noble gas, there is no question about that.

The circle table also mucks up the order of filling. Why are neon and lithium next to each other?

Site Full of Periodic Tables (5, Informative)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663353)

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 [meta-synthesis.com]

Re-inventing the wheel? (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663369)

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:Re-inventing the wheel? (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663739)

No need to disclaim. If you're anything like me, you work with billions of atoms on a daily basis!

Re:Re-inventing the wheel? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663967)

Try rolling the old table. It's like a square wheel! This new one is round, so it rolls very well. I'd say their "re"-invention of the wheel is a vast improvement.

Re:Re-inventing the wheel? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664007)

I don't get this comment 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.

Take a look at the table [technologyreview.com] . Are there really people who can't read it without rotating it?

Re:Re-inventing the wheel? (1)

electrons_are_brave (1344423) | more than 4 years ago | (#29665959)

There are some people who done rotate things very well in their heads. Hence the old spin-the-map routine.

As for me, I prefer not to read upside down. I can do it, but it's a bit of a strain.

Re:Re-inventing the wheel? (2, Insightful)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664761)

The second table and the ideas surrounding it are really restatements of the theoretical basis for the rules of electron configuration (the Aufbau principle). As a consquence of following Fermi-Dirac statistics, a lot of properties for electrons fall naturally out of associated symmetry groups, including quantum numbers and the Pauli exclusion principle. So in Kibler's group theory representation, elements are really just sorted by arrangment of quantum number, which is really just an alternative positioning of what we'd consider the s-, p-, d-, and f- "blocks" of elements in the current table. The group theory table is interesting in that it makes the group theory underpinnings of the periodic table more clear, but those foundations have been known since about 1930.

Re:Re-inventing the wheel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29666031)

Link. (pdf) [arxiv.org]

The website actually provides the full article in multiple formats on the sidebar. I almost missed it myself. It's sad that we live in a world where one sees an abstract (of an academic paper!!) and assumes that they won't be able to access it without paying money.

Me failed chemistry? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29663381)

So a Muslim from Microsoft wants to change the chart?

I might have known (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663403)

Now people will try to steal it.

Not a table! (1)

dvh.tosomja (1235032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663567)

It's a frakin circle!

Periodic Table (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29663571)

It's a cooler representation of the information in the periodic table but it does not reveal any more information than the original. For example - the article states that the viewer gets an indication of the size of the atoms with the ones toward the center being smaller. To me it looks like all the 'sizes' of each element is the same. Some are further out from the center but that's just as representative as distance from the top of the regular period table. I can't even write more about this it's so ridiculous.

Surely a spiral rather than a circle... (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663583)

The noble gases can, logically be considered as having either 8 or zero electrons in the outer shell, so could go to the next period.

Honestly though, a basic rectangular table does the job perfectly adequately.

$You fail it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29663721)

morning. Now $I have United S>tates.

Using the round one... (1)

Roskolnikov (68772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663841)

"That's worthy but flawed. 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."

I spent endless hours (and quarters) playing tempest, that seemed to work quite well on a computer screen and was the first thing that came to mind when I saw this ring 'o' elements

I must be tired. (0, Offtopic)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663909)

I misread that as "New Geographical Representation of the Periodic Table". Made me go "Huh?"

Table has many purposes (2, Interesting)

tygt (792974) | more than 4 years ago | (#29663951)

While the representation of the modern table can be considered cumbersome, it has a number of benefits - it's easy to see at a glance how various elements are related to each other (such as the noble gasses, the 1A metals, etc). Granted the circle arranges elements in groups as well (radially), but see if you can quickly find a specific group of elements... right, there you go, the traditional table does make that easier. Another thing that I like about the traditional table is that I can draw the table out from memory and fill it in quite a ways mainly by the shape of it and via associative memory (much as I can find the names of the 50 states by filling in a blank map of the USA). The circlular table doesn't have the same raw appearance; it has too much symmetry to give me any other clues about where what should go where.

That said, though, jogging one's memory isn't the best use of a table; given one put in front of you it'd be nice if its organization alone gave you information. I suppose that the circular representation could do this, with perhaps a few labels.

Of course this circular representation isn't all that new; the Chemical Galaxy [wikipedia.org] has been around for a number of years now and has a similar structure.

Definitely news for nerds (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664845)

It's definitely "news for nerds," but I get this creeping feeling that the whole endeavor should be tagged "slow chemistry day."

Are chemists really this bored with the classical table? Don't they have more important things to do? ;^)

--
Toro

Mass Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29664879)

The spiral table? Perhaps they've been playing too much "Mass Effect?"

Novelty is a handicap (2, Insightful)

Lucent (18019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29664931)

Being weird is an automatic handicap. The current layout provides a wealth of data in a grid, something that can be represented in the simplest of data structures. If you're going to switch to circular and have strange shapes and free-floating elements, you need to make up for all the complexity you've added by showing significantly more correlation. This does not in the least. If you want to see alternative layouts that really give the current a run for its money [meta-synthesis.com] , check out Stowe's [meta-synthesis.com] .

pretty cool (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 4 years ago | (#29665273)

The group theory method of organization is the same idea taught to anyone who's taken an atomic physics class (there are many "physics" periodic tables out there). Too bad we don't teach atomic physics very much anymore. It's a very useful representation for anyone who is looking at the elements from a modeling or spectroscopy perspective. There have to be tables in a similar representation that are decades old (though probably lacking a formal group theory explanation).

The summary missed the actual cool part of the group theory paper, which is that by doing the formal calculations, he's predicting a different set of atomic numbers should make up the superactinides than is normally assumed (the superactinides would be a third row that would go below the lanthanides and actinides). I have no idea if we'll ever be able to test this.

The traditional periodic table is meant to be organized by chemical properties. It seems to do that pretty well, there's not really a reason to change it.

I've seen this before somewhere... (2, Informative)

tomatoguy (545272) | more than 4 years ago | (#29665443)

In high-school chemistry I saw a chart like this, though arranged to accommodate the rare earths as their own separate but related group. It was nerd art for me - each element was assigned a shade of blue or red to indicate pH. I ordered two and they came with additional materials explaining the new chart. The charts are packed away, but I just looked up the hand-outs and tried to Google but found nothing. But, one of the had-outs is a reprint of a write-up in Chemistry magazine of September 1976. It was created by James Franklin Hyde, who is apparently the Father of Silicones acording to Wikipedia.

Oh, here's a link I just found to the chart http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=164 [meta-synthesis.com]

For the Internet Database of Periodic Tables, see http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?Button=Spiral+Formulations [meta-synthesis.com]

Ob Bill Gates (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29665543)

but may have limited utility for chemists who seem to have discovered (or predicted) all of the elements they need already

Erm... Unnilquadium ought to be enough for anybody??

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29665803)

The coolest periodic table of elements is and always will be Hyde's spiral:

http://www.superliminal.com/DowSpiral1.jpg

It's like a board game.

change for change's sake (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 4 years ago | (#29666199)

a sense of the relative size of atoms--the closer to the centre, the smaller they are--something that is missing from the current form of the table

Oh, come on. The size of the circles don't scale to the size of the atoms, they just use the "closer to the center" nonsense. Is that really any better than just saying "the closer to the top row the smaller they are"? I don't see any merit to this at all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...