Beta
×

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!

Shapeshifting: Proposal For a New Periodic Table of the Elements

timothy posted about a year ago | from the settlers-of-catan-eat-your-heart-out dept.

Science 87

First time accepted submitter ramorim writes "In honor of the Chemist Day, celebrated in Brazil on this day June 18, 2013, I publish a proposal for a new Periodic Table of Elements (Original, in Portugese) in a modular spiral-hexagonal model, with continuity and connectivity for all constituent units of the matter. This proposal indeed permits to extrapolate the hypothetical elements of the G-block and H-block in the same model."

cancel ×

87 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Because the old one wasn't working? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040311)

Don't fix it if it ain't broken...

Well, this one doesn't work, literally. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040349)

Error establishing a database connection

-__-

Well, not the first... (4, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#44041333)

I'll just leave this here [wikipedia.org] . Some of them also allow predictions of undiscovered elements. At present, I can't say whether the new form differs from previous circular or spiral forms in any significant way, because its site has evidently been slashdotted.

Re:Well, not the first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44043793)

Some of the ones in your link truly are better than the current one.

Re:Well, not the first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44043911)

Indeed. The Moran periodic table in TFA suggests that we're missing element number 43.5, for example.

More missing elements, to to be discovered. (2, Interesting)

Vincent77 (660967) | about a year ago | (#44040313)

The logic of the table is that it predicts missing elements really well. Does this circular table do the same?

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (2)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year ago | (#44040407)

This proposal indeed permits to extrapolate the hypothetical elements of the G-block and H-block in the same model.

Presumably that is the purpose of this periodic table...
I would consider an alternative periodic table a success if it predicts new elements or new interactions that the old one didn't.
I haven't been able to see the link, but my guess is that is the goal, not to change the periodic table we have, but to give another way of looking at the elements that allows for new predictions that can help advance research.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44040469)

I would consider an alternative periodic table a success if it predicts new elements or new interactions that the old one didn't.

This, right here. This is the only valid argument for changing an existing and well-understood model when there's no new evidence to consider.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (3, Interesting)

B'Trey (111263) | about a year ago | (#44040823)

I would consider an alternative periodic table a success if it predicts new elements or new interactions that the old one didn't.

This, right here. This is the only valid argument for changing an existing and well-understood model when there's no new evidence to consider.

The Periodic Table isn't a model, or at least not a functional model. It's a chart - a way to represent data. Arguably, a chart is a model of sorts but considering your comment concerning "new evidence," you certainly seem to be implying that it's a model of how things function and this new proposal provides an alternate functional model, which isn't the case. The proposed alternative isn't a new theory of elements. It doesn't change our idea of how things works. It simply presents the same information and understanding in a different way. If the new table doesn't provide any new predictive ability at all but it does, say, present the information in a way that's easier to grasp or makes relationships clearer, then it's worth considering and possibly worth adapting.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (3, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44041435)

Clearly, you'd skipped chemistry lessons at school. Periodic table _is_ a model, it successfully predicted properties of new elements. The fact that it looks like a table is just a detail.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#44041663)

The name doesn't help either.

In my case yes, I sacrificed chemistry to get a full dose of physics instead. I don't really regret it, though sometimes I do feel the lack. I would expect to see more use out of a database + algorithms rather than a convenient tabular arrangement.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44041809)

Clearly, you'd skipped chemistry lessons at school. Periodic table _is_ a model, it successfully predicted properties of new elements. The fact that it looks like a table is just a detail.

Clearly, you'd skipped Reading Comprehension lessons at school. The table is not a model- it's a representation of a model.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44042633)

It is a phenomenological model. I.e. it doesn't describe the underlying cases, but that's OK. For example, first light spectrum laws are another examples of phenomenological models.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | about a year ago | (#44047313)

Euhm, if you studied physics, have you somehow missed that the standard model is also essentially a table and a few rules about what positions in the table mean ?

And you may have failed to notice that the physics teacher claimed that chemical elements are made up of standard model particles, and they thus "explain" the chemical elements ... and then proceeded to skip actually showing how you get the composition of any actual element and/or isotope (except maybe H+). Sadly that's not a coincidence. It is thought that the standard model does indeed predict which elements are stable or not, but nobody's ever been able to actually verify that in calculations for anything more complex than Lithium. And something like Oxygen is so far out of reach of the formulas it's not even funny, not to mention Uranium.

Sadly at this point in time, the idea that chemistry can be rigorously poven using physics as a base is just a fantasy. Given that they've failed to actually do that for centuries now, I dare say it's not just because nobody ever thought of doing that.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (2)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44048287)

You're confusing about 10 different issues. Let's start:

1) Standard Model deals with subatomic particles.

2) Standard Model has no effect on _chemical_ properties of elements. They are determined by the structure of electron shells. Incidentally, the Periodic Table models the structure of the outer electron shell.

3) To predict _chemical_ properties you need only to use relativistic Schroedinger equation, it can't be solved exactly for anything past hydrogen, but it certainly can be solved numerically. For example, the color of gold and copper is a relativistic effect that can be derived from quantum description of electron orbitals. It's possible to simulate even fairly large molecules and people are now working on protein folding simulations from the first principles.

4) Predicting nuclear stability is another problem entirely - it's way too complicated, because of a huge number of strongly interacting particles in a nucleus of a typical atom. It's like the many-body problem in classical mechanics - you get a chaotic behavior even with a small number of weakly interacting bodies and a simple inverse-square motion law.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (2)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | about a year ago | (#44042549)

No, it is not a model. Mendeleeiev noticed regularities in the elements. He found that putting them by rows and columns of properties, he got an arrangements where there were gaps. This was a model exactly in the way that giving names to clouds and putting them in a table is a model.

Because nature is fairly regular, he was right: elements did fit in the missing spaces. But also, whole rows were missing. Now we understand, through quantum mechanics, where the patterns come from -- and also where they break down.

We know that the table is now complete (in that all elements in all rows we have previously observed have been produced), and that relativistic effects may (or not!) make the next row completely different. Because this is the XXIst and not the XIXst, we actually have models to build the next table :)

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (1)

bogjobber (880402) | about a year ago | (#44046665)

Mendeleev was not the first person to put together the periodic table. His was just the best/most popular at the time. And if putting types of clouds in a table let you predict new, previously unknown types of clouds it would be a model as well.

The concept of valency was understood at that time, so it wasn't just about physical properties. They may not have understood *why* the elements were periodic, but they successfully used it to predict the properties and relative masses of previously unknown, naturally-occurring but relatively rare elements. It was also one of the more important developments that lead to the discovery of subatomic particles, because the periodic table made clear that the properties of elements were not directly related to their atomic mass (ie tellurium was placed ahead of iodine, even though tellurium's atomic mass is greater than iodine's) which was a very significant distinction for the time.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (5, Informative)

CTachyon (412849) | about a year ago | (#44041667)

The Periodic Table isn't a model, or at least not a functional model. It's a chart - a way to represent data.

It's more than a chart. A table is not just a way to represent data; a simple list of all items in random order can represent the data just as well as a table can. A table is a way to organize data -- by spotting patterns, identifying which patterns are most important, then arranging the items to highlight those patterns. By choosing which patterns are important, you are implicitly constructing a model of what the items in the table are.

The Mendeleev-derived periodic table has done quite nicely for us: it predicted the properties of many elements long before we actually isolated them, and it was doing so well before we understood that the patterns highlighted by the table (the table's implicit model) were ultimately caused by the arrangement of electrons into quantum-mechanical energy-level shells by way of Pauli exclusion, with the arrangement of elements in each row directly dependent on the quantized degrees of freedom in each shell's energy level (hence the 2*[1], 2*[1+3], 2*[1+3+5], 2*[1+3+5+7] pattern in the table's row widths). Think of the table as a quick first-order approximation to the deeper equations needed to compute the true physics, such as the energy of a filled d-orbital in the third electron shell. A more complex table with an extra dimension or two of symmetry might be able to capture more patterns, giving us a more detailed model that produces better, more subtle approximations than the Mendeleev-derived model can yield; yet that new model would still bypass the tough work of calculating how electrons actually behave when packed around a single nucleus. (Or perhaps we could capture some symmetry affecting how an atom forms molecular bonds, or a nucleon symmetry that gives better predictions of stability and half-life or that better captures why the stable proton:neutron ratio isn't a perfectly smooth curve.)

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44042033)

Very nicely written!

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44046669)

A more complex table with an extra dimension or two of symmetry might be able to capture more patterns, giving us a more detailed model that produces better, more subtle approximations than the Mendeleev-derived model can yield

Yet the table still couldn't predict the properties of gold. Understanding many of the elements requires models - approximate theories that make falsifiable predictions like relativity and electron shielding - that explains the electrons in the outer shells of gold atoms are compressed. Unlike other atoms in that period, gold has very weird properties. Not just the gold color from absorbing the "wrong" frequencies of light but also forming bonds like AuXe4 [wikipedia.org] that a model based on Mendeleev's table can not predict.

The crux of the matter I think you put it best:

the table's implicit model

Tables, like other language artifacts are good for communicating ideas, but are not ideas in and of themselves.

To paraphrase Edward Tufe [edwardtufte.com] , not only can tables be used to explain, but also they can be used to missexplain.

The real value in the alternative tables is if they explain better those underlying theories their creators have in their heads. And as a bonus, compared to many of the alternative tables, Mendeleev's table is easy to draw.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44046783)

Spot on.

Just looking at a couple of the columns in Mendeleev's table [wikipedia.org] shows the considerable utility of the current table. You can see the properties of the elements as arranged tend to be similar to their neighbors: fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine have useful similarities. Likewise: helium, neon, argon, krypton, exon, radon - all noble gasses. Flip to the other side, and lithium, sodium, and potassium are all highly reactive metals. Then consider carbon, silicon, and germanium - all useful in creating base wafer materials for semiconductor work. It is easy to go on, and on. Although other chart formats may have their uses, I think that Mendeleev's is very difficult to improve upon. It is simple, powerful, and easy to use.

Ease of use (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#44040901)

This is the only valid argument for changing an existing and well-understood model when there's no new evidence to consider.

There is one more possible reason which is if it makes the information somehow more comprehensible or easier to work with to someone appropriately trained. I'm not a chemist so I can't really speak to the difficulty or failings of the current periodic table versus this proposed one. However if this proposed version is somehow easier to work with and gives equivalent (or better) results then that could be a credible reason to use it. If it saves time or mental horsepower then that could be a good reason to use it.

Re:Ease of use (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#44041797)

Different periodic tables might be better for different uses. Maybe one would be good for PhD's while others would be good for high school students who don't really intend on studying chemistry after high school or their bachelor's degree. Maybe a different periodic table would suit organic chemistry better. I doubt there's one periodic table that works best for all of chemistry, just as there isn't one programming language or IDE that works best for all types of programming.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (2, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44040415)

The logic of the table is that it predicts missing elements really well. Does this circular table do the same?

Did you even read the summary?

This proposal indeed permits to extrapolate the hypothetical elements of the G-block and H-block in the same model.

I realize nobody reads TFA, but it's a two sentence summary which says, yes, it does allow predicting hypothetical elements.

You could at least try.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040453)

Ok sac breath, but anyone who doesn't know what the fuck G and H block is can't magically fucking guess, now can they? Fuck you're a fucking tool idiot.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44040515)

Ok sac breath, but anyone who doesn't know what the fuck G and H block is can't magically fucking guess, now can they? Fuck you're a fucking tool idiot.

they're some groups of hypothetical elements.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040541)

Well, maybe you and the OP are both stupid, but you don't need to have the slightest idea of what the G and H block is when TFA says you can "extrapolate the hypothetical elements" and the question was "can you extrapolate new elements?".

The GP might have been a little snide, but was entirely correct. TFS answered the question, whether or not you know what those blocks are.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (4, Insightful)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year ago | (#44040603)

If you don't know basic terms that deal with the periodic table then just maybe you aren't qualified to comment on whether or not a redesign could be useful.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (0)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44040767)

If you don't know basic terms that deal with the periodic table then just maybe you aren't qualified to comment on whether or not a redesign could be useful.

And, quite frankly, you really don't need to know what the G and H blocks are to see that TFS answered the question before it was asked.

I have no idea of what they are either, but TFS says you can still extrapolate hypothetical elements.

Re: More missing elements, to to be discovered. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44041159)

Chuck Norris has removed all Elements from the periodic Table apart from the one missing element, the element of Surprise. (Bo2) Which could be located in G block and H block at the same time.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44041027)

Did your daddy usually cum in your mouth or your ass? Which did you prefer.

You sound like a whiny bitch, I bet you like it up the ass, but you won't pass up the chance to smoke some pole.

Re:More missing elements, to to be discovered. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44043091)

Yes they can. If you know basic chemistry, you know what the s,p,d, and f blocks are. That's basic high school chemistry. If you don't know that, then a periodic table isn't useful to you at all. You could reasonable assume that G and H blocks are what come after the f blocks. You would have to look for the elements right after the f blocks first right? They aren't just going to skip them. This is basic high school chemistry.

Beehive not a table (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040327)

The proposal looks more like a beehive than a table. Little wonder that the current design, with its' inherent expand-ability, has experienced sustained longevity.

Re:Beehive not a table (5, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#44040425)

inherent expand-ability

Actually, if you expanded the table in the way that is intuitively obvious (and provides the most meaning) it's about 5x wider than it is tall making it difficult to work with in a physical sense. As it is almost always presented, important information is totally lost on most people when they look at it.

Re:Beehive not a table (1)

securityfolk (906041) | about a year ago | (#44041187)

From my hobbyist messings-around with PTOE, it seems that the Lanthanides and the Actinides are about unstable nuclei due to neutrino decay and the crazy electron configurations (Have you looked at those outer shells?? It's a mess!). If it were up to me, I would stop the table at Lead. Nothing really happens in 5f until after then anyways.

Re:Beehive not a table (1)

securityfolk (906041) | about a year ago | (#44041213)

Sigh.... neutron decay... I meant neutron.

Re:Beehive not a table (3, Funny)

CODiNE (27417) | about a year ago | (#44041251)

I like that idea.

Stop the table at Lead, then add a "Here be Dragons" below.

Re:Beehive not a table (2)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | about a year ago | (#44044473)

"Here be physics." That's enough to warn 95% of us chemists away right there (including me).

Re:Beehive not a table (1)

Zorpheus (857617) | about a year ago | (#44044917)

The Lanthanides, also called rare earth elements, are not unstable.

Re:Beehive not a table (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year ago | (#44046709)

it seems that the Lanthanides and the Actinides are about unstable nuclei

Well... the Actinides are all unstable, but the Lanthanides are stable and interesting for their various uses in various high-tech materials.

OK, by "stable" I mean "have stable isotopes" and some of those "unstable" Actinides have very long half-lives.

English, motherfucker do you speak it!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040333)

Ay ay ay, no es bueno.

Repsonding with Spanish to Portuguese (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040527)

Ay ay ay, no es bueno.

Dude, the original is in Portuguese and you reply in Spanish.

Alrighty then!

I was once over hearing a "conversation" between an American ignoramus who was very irate at a Latina. He said a bunch of stuff in English and then yelled, "Comprendo!?" which the Latina hears, "I understand?!"

Re:English, motherfucker do you speak it!? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#44043865)

El perro, el perro, es mi corazon
El gato, el gato, el gato no es bueno

Cilantro es cantante, cilantro es muy famoso
Cilantro es el hombre con el queso del diablo.

Valence? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#44040347)

I thought one of the useful applications of the old table was that you could read down the columns and find 'like' materials, for instance, the halogens all sort of behave alike, the noble gases, etc. I don't see how that works here. And now of course, the article (the Google??) is now slashdotted and I can't recheck it.

I don't see how the old table didn't work I guess.

Re:Valence? (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44040399)

though this one can't be viewed at present, various spiral tables in the past had such similar elements on same radius line from center. Another "hip" thing to do was include the neutron in the inert gas family and before hydrogen in outward spiral.

Re:Valence? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44040833)

I don't see how the old table didn't work I guess.

I don't think anybody is saying it "didn't work", but that we can convey even more information if we laid it out a little differently.

So, if everything is in a spiral, the arms of the spiral instead of columns of the table contain the 'like' materials -- but I have no idea of what the 'more' information is since I haven't taken any chemistry classes in 25+ years.

Re:Valence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44043167)

Here's the interesting thing about models. Some models of the same underlying system are useful in certain situations where they aren't in others.

Let's look at maps as an example, seeing has how they are models of physical areas.
For a building, or even a small city, there's no real need to account for the curvature of the Earth. If you want to show an entire (large) country, you probably need to indicate differences in scale at different latitudes. If you want to show the entire planet, you *really* need to do something to compensate for the curvature, or you end up with weirdness like Greenland looking bigger than the continental United States.

The current 'Periodic Table of Elements' may work perfectly well within it's domain, but it may be weak, or even break down in odd ways when you try to use it to make predictions of how things work in other domains. It appears that this proposed new form is models everything the traditional PToE does, and *also* models aspects that the traditional PToE did not.

Re:Valence? (1)

captn ecks (525113) | about a year ago | (#44047487)

The page is available again and I believe that information is represented by following the connections 45 degrees up and to the left in the proposed chart.

Error establishing a database connection :( (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040353)

The subject says it all.

Re:Error establishing a database connection :( (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#44041693)

Interestingly, I would expect just dumping the data into a database and using algorithms to figure things out would make more sense.

Sounds awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040357)

Looks Slashdotted...

Re:Sounds awesome! (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | about a year ago | (#44041537)

On the plus side, I know little enough about the physics that the original Portugese is no less baffling than the translation would be if it weren't slashdotted.

Site already blown to bits (1)

54mc (897170) | about a year ago | (#44040363)

Error establishing a database connection that looks suspiciously like a broken WordPress on the source material. Google link shows a translation of a translation of a translation...

It may work, but is it practical? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040369)

Is it really a table if it has more than two dimensions? Is there a word for that, hypertable? Also, it will be harder to print and put on the walls of our chemistry rooms.

Re:It may work, but is it practical? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040699)

it will be harder to print and put on the walls of our chemistry rooms.

But totally awesome to put on our spiral staircases.

So Hydrogen and Florine are in the same "column" (4, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | about a year ago | (#44040373)

I can see where this "attempts" to make more sense. I'll still be going with Mendeleyev Derivatives. This proposal is just fancy for the sake of being fancy.

Hydrogen is too different from anything else (1)

Arrepiadd (688829) | about a year ago | (#44047609)

Hydrogen behaves in odd ways and it's hard to place it in a specific place that fits all "needs". In some ways [wikipedia.org] hydrogen behaves like halogens. Among other reasons because it can only establish one bond, like other halogens (since it's highest occupied orbital [which, coincidentally, is the only one] is missing one electron). Of course, since it's highest occupied orbital only has one electron, it fits nicely in the first column of the periodic table, where all elements have only one electron in their highest occupied s orbital. But all the elements on column 1 are metals and they readily react with water, which the hydrogen molecule doesn't. So, from that perspective H cannot be an element of group 1.

what? (1)

internerdj (1319281) | about a year ago | (#44040445)

A spiral model has potential since the underlying phenomenon could be described in spiral terms but this just didn't make any sense to me. Reading order was all foreign (even from the author's native language.) The potential for more connections could have been worthwhile but it wasn't clear what each dimension of connectivity meant.

Re:what? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44041223)

It would seem to me that the current layout with its rows for the electron shells, and the columns for how many electrons are in the shell, would be of much more use. I'm not a chemist, but I don't see how a spiral layout would be "better" at pointing out relationships between the elements.

There goes ``Omnilingual'' (maybe?) (2)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year ago | (#44040609)

H. Beam Piper posited that an archeological team, finding the remains of a reasonably advanced civilization would be able to puzzle out their language(s) based on the fundamentals of math and chemistry in his novel ``Omnilingual'':

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19445 [gutenberg.org]

I wonder what he would have thought of this, and how many other useful representations / arrangements there are of the periodic table.

Alternate Periodic Tables (4, Informative)

Comboman (895500) | about a year ago | (#44040821)

I wonder ... how many other useful representations / arrangements there are of the periodic table.

A surprisingly large variety [wikipedia.org] actually.

Re:There goes ``Omnilingual'' (maybe?) (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44040935)

H. Beam Piper posited that an archeological team, finding the remains of a reasonably advanced civilization would be able to puzzle out their language(s) based on the fundamentals of math and chemistry in his novel ``Omnilingual'':

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19445 [gutenberg.org]

I wonder what he would have thought of this, and how many other useful representations / arrangements there are of the periodic table.

Nice to see I'm not the only one who remembers this. Consider though that they confirmed the information it out from the electron shells and atomic weights since they had already found reasonable guesses for number symbols and "months", the fact that it was arranged as a table was just one of the clues used to decipher it.

(The concept of a periodic table as Rosetta Stone was reused in a Stargate episode and probably elsewhere, but Omnilingual is the oldest one I know of.)

Re:There goes ``Omnilingual'' (maybe?) (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#44041613)

I wonder what he would have thought of this, and how many other useful representations / arrangements there are of the periodic table.

His Martian table of elements wasn't exactly Mendeleevian. Two columns, forty six elements in each. So I don't think Piper'd be shocked. The characters already knew they were in the chem department because of a Bohr representation of a Uranium atom. I suspect, given their knowledge of page numbers and number-names (ie, 9 and nine), chemists would have eventually figured out any "table" of elements, even if it was a spiral or some other form. It may not have happened on Mars, though.

(The moral of the story was that studying extinct alien civilisations needs physicists and chemists, not just traditional archaeologists and linguists, since the only possible Rosetta Stone is nature.)

Mendeleev, It time to step down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040651)

It's about time Mendeleev Table meets XXI century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev

Needs better /. editing (5, Insightful)

Sowelu (713889) | about a year ago | (#44040701)

Foreign language submissions are all well and good, but shouldn't our esteemed editors be editing the submitted English into grammatical English (or paraphrasing it)?

Re:Needs better /. editing (1)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#44040757)

Your naivete is so charming.

Re:Needs better /. editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44041517)

Foreign language submissions are all well and good, but shouldn't our esteemed editors be editing the submitted English into grammatical English (or paraphrasing it)?

You must be new here.

Re:Needs better /. editing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44043133)

They don't even do that when the original submission is in English. If anything, Slashdot editors make it worse.

Re:Needs better /. editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44045483)

why do brazillians overuse the word indeed.

Slashdotted (5, Informative)

Megane (129182) | about a year ago | (#44040747)

Since the original is unavailable, you might want to google for unusual periodic table [google.com] to see other interesting variations of the periodic table of the elements.

Theodor Benfey's periodic spiral (1964)? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040755)

The link is down, but is it anything like that? [wikimedia.org]

Would be nice if we could see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44040841)

Google Error

          Sorry, we are unable to access the page you requested:

                http://projects.codecommunity.org/periodic-table/dia-do-quimico-proposta-de-uma-nova-tabela-periodica/

Pasting it into a browser shows: "...cannot display the webpage"

Anyway (3, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#44041045)

Oh for god's sake. Even the original in Portuguese is slashdotted.

Hmm (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#44041175)

I decry the validity of this new proposal because they could not even predict the Slashdot effect, in any language.

Brazilians have more pressing matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44041363)

Re:Brazilians have more pressing matters (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#44041909)

American have even more urgent matters like this [jwz.org] , but as everyone pretend that nothing is happening, better focus in new periodic tables.

Change is bad. Tom Lehrer (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about a year ago | (#44041503)

will have to revise his elements song. And you'll now have to sing it in rounds.

Iron-y coincidence? (4, Interesting)

thatseattleguy (897282) | about a year ago | (#44042269)

One interesting feature of the table is the resulting position of iron(Fe) - it serves as the single, pivotal point that "links" the two halves of the table and spiral together.

And, of course, iron is at the bottom of the binding energy curve - it can't be fissioned or fusioned to provide net energy output.

My physics education is too far in the distant past to discern if these two things are just a coincidence - or significant feature resulting from the inherent structure of the table.

This extrapolation is not important. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44042923)

The periodic table is mainly used to obtain coarse estimations of the chemical properties of the elements in relation to each other. When you consider very heavy radioactive elements this use becomes meaningless as you will have problems to perform chemistry with elements that decay within several milliseconds.

Predictions of the properties of very heavy elements exist in far more sophisticated form than it is given by a simple extrapolation of the periodic table.

Interesting, but I don't get it (5, Interesting)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | about a year ago | (#44043691)

I've seen various 'periodic tables' over the years (I have a chem degree), but this one just doesn't do anything for me. What exactly are the extra relationships being depicted here? In what sense is He for instance intermediate in properties between H and Li (which are vastly more similar to each other chemically than either one is to He and in the standard periodic table this is apparent). Nor do I see any special close affinity between say C and Al, yet they are adjacent in this table (in a standard periodic table these elements are fairly close but not adjacent).

I don't even understand the choice of positions of elements on this table. It seems in some degree arbitrary. Why a spiral? Why this PARTICULAR spiral arrangement? I really must be missing something here....

Re:Interesting, but I don't get it (1)

countach (534280) | about a year ago | (#44044373)

Yes exactly. This table might be brilliant, but we aren't told exactly what the extra relationships are that are modelled. If some label could be applied to the various rows to tell us what value the table is giving us, it might make sense.

Re:Interesting, but I don't get it (1)

Giant Electronic Bra (1229876) | about a year ago | (#44045835)

Yeah, the article just blathers on about how wonderful the hexagonal arrangement and spiral layout are, etc. Maybe there's some significance, but if the OP wants us to know about it he should write up a better description, lol.

Hexagons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44043755)

Just because hexagons look chemical-ish doesn't make them a good representation of the relationships between elements. That chart is hideous and hard to understand compared to the existing spiral tables.

The Disappearing Spoon (1)

Snotnose (212196) | about a year ago | (#44044123)

I just finished this book (http://www.amazon.com/Disappearing-Spoon-Madness-Periodic-Elements/dp/0316051632/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371593805&sr=1-1&keywords=disappearing+spoon), it's pretty entertaining for chemistry and sciency types.

It's neither periodic nor a table (2)

shadowofwind (1209890) | about a year ago | (#44044851)

But five out of six bees think it's a big improvement.

It's Portrait Oriented!!! (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | about a year ago | (#44048085)

I kept telling ThinkGeek, "I only have a shower stall, you insensitive clods!!!" and that their landscape oriented periodic table shower curtain [thinkgeek.com] doesn't fit correctly.

Now I can get a new style periodic table that fits a shower stall that's taller than it is wide!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>