This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
The French geologist , Alexandre-Émile Béguyer de Chancourtois was the first person to make use of atomic weights to produce a classification of periodicity. He drew the elements as a continuous spiral around a metal cylinder divided into 16 parts. The atomic weight of oxygen was taken as 16 and was used as the standard against which all the other elements were compared. Tellurium was situated at the centre, prompting vis tellurique, or telluric screw.
Many thanks to Peter Wothers – and courtesy of the Master and Fellows of St Catharine's College, Cambridge – comes a high quality image of the original 1862 formulation. 1862 Béguyer de Chancourtois' Vis Tellurique
Hinrichs' system is based on the relationship of what he called: "pantogens, with its atoms called panatoms, which explains the numerical relations of atomic weights and gives a simple classification of the elements."
This classification system culminated in 1867 in his spiral periodic table, which better clarified the groupings of elements. Hinrichs' classification, while distinctly different from the other periodic tables of this period, "seems to capture many of the primary periodicity relationships seen in the modern periodic table... it is not cluttered by attempts to show secondary kinship relationships." (Scerri)
Gustavus Detlef Hinrichs' spiral "Programme of Atomechanics". Programm der Atomechanik oder die Chemie eine Mechanik de Pantome, Augustus Hageboek, Iowa City, IA (1867). 1867 Hinrichs' Programme of Atomechanics
Janet's Helicoidal Classification, essentially his left-step formulation in its spiral version (ref. Charles Janet, La Classification Hélicoïdale des Éléments Chimiques. Beauvais: Imprimerie Départementale de l'Oise. 1928). Information supplied by Philip Stewart 1928 Janet's Helicoidal Classification
A spiral periodic table available as a poster, binder, cup, T-shirt, etc. by Vectoria 2008 Spiral Periodic Table
By Alexander Makeyev – integrated interdisciplinary researcher, inventor, poet – a long pdf document (1093 pages in Russian, here) that contains a new formulation 2011 Makeyev's Periodic Table
The "curled ribbon" form in the Gallery section includes visuals of the various atomic radii, determined on a "metallic" basis - presumably because it gives the cleanest trend. Elements that are not metallic at room temperature have had ratios assigned by some other means (curve-fitting?) that reflect this trend.
...Except for the noble gases, which are shown as having similar sizes to the subsequent alkaline metal rather than - as one would expect - the preceding halogen. I can't see any way in which this would make sense. 2A02:6B6E:D0FF:0:DCF8:7A44:3E22:72F6 (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article renamed from "Alternative periodic tables"
This article was previously called "Alternative periodic tables". It was today renamed "Types of periodic tables." The contents have been renovated, restructured and expanded. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dayyan Ahmed Qureshi, I have removed the Discoid table from the article as it does not show periodicity for groups 3 to 12.
In your paper you say:
"Part "B" [transition metals and Ln and An]...has no Groups (or Families) because there is no need of it. All Transition metals are almost chemically and physically same, with no big difference."
In fact, transition metal groups differ from each other in terms of electron configuration, oxidation states, complex formation, reactivity, physical properties, and their roles in various applications.
For example:
"The early transition metals are electropositive and so readily lose all their valence electrons. These elements are therefore often found in the highest permissible oxidation state, such as d0 Zr(IV) and Ta(V). Lower oxidation states, such as d2 Zr(II) and Ta(III), are very easily oxidized because the two d electrons are in an orbital of relatively high energy and, therefore, are easily lost...
"Late metals, in contrast, are relatively electronegative, so they tend to retain their valence electrons. The low oxidation states, such as d8 Pd(II), tend to be stable, and the higher ones, such as d6 Pd(IV), often find ways to return to Pd(II); that is, they are oxidizing.
Crabtree RH 2005, The Organometallic Chemistry of the Transition Metals, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, pp. 47–48
The problem with the Discoid table is that it crams the lanthanides and actinides into the same arcs as the elements from Lu to Hg, and from from Lr to Cn, resulting in the loss of transition metal group structures.
Hello, I'm writing to you about the "Discoid Periodic Table" which was previously featured on the Wikipedia article "Types of Periodic Table". I'm reaching out to respectfully request that the description of the table be added back to the article. The table's design is unique and helps people understand the Periodic Table in a more intuitive and engaging way. It's educational value for readers should be considered. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Transition Metal Similarities: While it's true that transition metals share some similarities in their properties, this doesn't negate the value of distinguishing them into separate groups. However, the Discoid Periodic Table aims to provide a different perspective that emphasizes the continuum of properties across these elements rather than strict groupings. This can offer a more intuitive understanding of the gradual changes in properties as you move across or sideways in the transition metals.
Lanthanide and Actinide Placement: The decision to place lanthanides and actinides within the same arcs as other elements is intentional in the Discoid Periodic Table. By doing so, it allows for a more compact representation of the elements while still providing space for these important series. This design choice facilitates a clearer visualization of the periodic trends and relationships, especially in relation to the transition metals.
Loss of Traditional Group Structures: While the Discoid Periodic Table may deviate from the traditional group structures, it offers a novel approach that encourages users to think beyond rigid groupings. By breaking away from conventional layouts, it prompts exploration of the connections and similarities between elements that may not be immediately apparent in a standard periodic table. This can foster a deeper understanding of the underlying principles of chemistry and atomic structure.
Space Efficiency: One of the primary advantages of the Discoid Periodic Table is its efficient use of space. By arranging the elements in a circular format, it maximizes the available area for displaying information while maintaining clarity and readability. This can be particularly beneficial in educational settings where space may be limited, or in contexts where a compact and visually appealing presentation is desired.
In summary, while the Discoid Periodic Table may have its drawbacks, such as deviating from traditional group structures, it offers unique advantages such as a more intuitive representation of transition metal properties and efficient use of space. By emphasizing these benefits and acknowledging the trade-offs, the Discoid Periodic Table can be seen as a valuable alternative that complements existing periodic table designs. 59.103.206.116 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of modified Discoid Periodic Table Thanks for your post and for sharing your thoughts about the Discoid Periodic Table (DPT). I appreciate the innovative approach to representing the elements.
I understand that the design choices, such as the integration of the 4f and 5d metals, as well as the 5f and 6d metals in the same arcs, were made with the intention of creating a more compact and continuous representation of the elements. However, I'd like to share some constructive feedback on these aspects.
In conventional periodic tables, the lanthanides and actinides stand separately so as maintain clear group relationships and reflect accurate electron configurations and properties. When, for example, the 4f and 5d metals appear aligned or semi-aligned with the 4d metals (as in the DPT) it implies relationships not found in the literature.
The aligment of the 3d metals and the 4d metals is quite problematic, since the 4d and 5d metals are pretty distinct from the 3d metals. The way the DPT is currently drawn suggests a similarity between the 3d and 4d metals when such a relationship is not present in the literature. Instead, the 3d metals more stand alone, whereas the 4d and 5d metals are more closely related. In the convention table the 3d, 4d and 5d metals are all aligned with one another: this is a licence that is tolerated.
While the DPT is space-efficient and visually engaging, it is also essential to ensure that the representation does not lead to misunderstandings of elemental properties and relationships.
Perhaps there could be a way to retain the table's innovative spirit while also addressing these alignment concerns. This could help in providing a clearer distinction between the series and ensure that group characteristics are accurately portrayed. I've attached one possibility.
.png)