| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"taylor" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2007 02:40:44 PM |
| Object: |
Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing the periodic table so that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change the periodic table suggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made the periodic table
easy to understand - simply go to http://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
10 Jul 2007 05:34:48 AM |
|
|
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
10 Jul 2007 03:29:10 PM |
|
|
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group. In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
10 Jul 2007 03:56:47 PM |
|
|
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur? Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like other
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
10 Jul 2007 06:48:35 PM |
|
|
On Jul 10, 4:56 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur?
Sometimes. The original grouping, due to Mendeleev, was due to
similarity of chemical properties
Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like other
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
No. Anyone who would mistake hydrogen (a colorless, explosive gas at
room temperature) for silvery, soft metals is singularly lacking in
observational skills :-)
Seriously, it is actually diffficult to think of examples where
hydrogen acts ANYTHING like the alkali metals. The most common valence
of hydrogen is +1, like the alkalis, but it can also be -1 (in
hydride), which NEVER happens for alkali metals.
NaCl is a salt, HCl is a corrosive gas (unless dissolved in water,
where it is a strong acid)
Keep in mind, it is not only the valence shells that account for
chemical properties. The ratio of charge to the size of the atom makes
a big difference. This is why the first member of each group has
unique properties. Also, there are so-called "diagonal relationships".
so that Be often acts like Al, B like Si, etc.
In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
10 Jul 2007 07:19:57 PM |
|
|
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:56 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur?
Sometimes. The original grouping, due to Mendeleev, was due to
similarity of chemical properties
Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like other
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
No. Anyone who would mistake hydrogen (a colorless, explosive gas at
room temperature) for silvery, soft metals is singularly lacking in
observational skills :-)
But don't lithium, sodium and potassium metals, when pure, have to be
stored in jars of oil because they are so reactive they will combust
and/or explode when exposed to oxygen or water? My observation is
that they aren't much different from hydrogen in that regard.
And what does gas vs. solid have to do with anything? Is bromine not
a Halogen because it's a liquid while fluorine and chlorine are
gasses?
Seriously, it is actually diffficult to think of examples where
hydrogen acts ANYTHING like the alkali metals. The most common valence
of hydrogen is +1, like the alkalis, but it can also be -1 (in
hydride), which NEVER happens for alkali metals.
NaCl is a salt, HCl is a corrosive gas
Salt isn't corrosive?
(unless dissolved in water,
where it is a strong acid)
Keep in mind, it is not only the valence shells that account for
chemical properties. The ratio of charge to the size of the atom makes
a big difference. This is why the first member of each group has
unique properties. Also, there are so-called "diagonal relationships".
so that Be often acts like Al, B like Si, etc.
I'm also keeping in mind that helium is inert, like the other noble
gasses.
In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
10 Jul 2007 08:01:56 PM |
|
|
On Jul 10, 6:19 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:56 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur?
Sometimes. The original grouping, due to Mendeleev, was due to
similarity of chemical properties
Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like other
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
No. Anyone who would mistake hydrogen (a colorless, explosive gas at
room temperature) for silvery, soft metals is singularly lacking in
observational skills :-)
But don't lithium, sodium and potassium metals, when pure, have to be
stored in jars of oil because they are so reactive they will combust
and/or explode when exposed to oxygen or water? My observation is
that they aren't much different from hydrogen in that regard.
And what does gas vs. solid have to do with anything? Is bromine not
a Halogen because it's a liquid while fluorine and chlorine are
gasses?
Seriously, it is actually diffficult to think of examples where
hydrogen acts ANYTHING like the alkali metals. The most common valence
of hydrogen is +1, like the alkalis, but it can also be -1 (in
hydride), which NEVER happens for alkali metals.
NaCl is a salt, HCl is a corrosive gas
Salt isn't corrosive?
(unless dissolved in water,
where it is a strong acid)
Keep in mind, it is not only the valence shells that account for
chemical properties. The ratio of charge to the size of the atom makes
a big difference. This is why the first member of each group has
unique properties. Also, there are so-called "diagonal relationships".
so that Be often acts like Al, B like Si, etc.
I'm also keeping in mind that helium is inert, like the other noble
gasses.
In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely- Hide quoted text -
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF
This shows why 14 Lanthanides etc
John
Galaxy Model
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
10 Jul 2007 09:13:53 PM |
|
|
On Jul 10, 8:19 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:56 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur?
Sometimes. The original grouping, due to Mendeleev, was due to
similarity of chemical properties
Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like other
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
No. Anyone who would mistake hydrogen (a colorless, explosive gas at
room temperature) for silvery, soft metals is singularly lacking in
observational skills :-)
But don't lithium, sodium and potassium metals, when pure, have to be
stored in jars of oil because they are so reactive they will combust
and/or explode when exposed to oxygen or water? My observation is
that they aren't much different from hydrogen in that regard.
Hydrogen doesn't react violently with water - in fact, it doesn't
react with it at all.
And what does gas vs. solid have to do with anything? Is bromine not
a Halogen because it's a liquid while fluorine and chlorine are
gasses?
And iodine is a solid - but we are talking about group I, not the
halogens. All the alkali metals have a VERY similar physical
appreance, going from lithium (which nevertheless, is the most unusual
of the bunch) up to cesium. They all lose electorns very easily - all
more than hydrogen (look at the electrochemical series)
Seriously, it is actually diffficult to think of examples where
hydrogen acts ANYTHING like the alkali metals. The most common valence
of hydrogen is +1, like the alkalis, but it can also be -1 (in
hydride), which NEVER happens for alkali metals.
NaCl is a salt, HCl is a corrosive gas
Salt isn't corrosive?
Put out two plates of linguiini. Season one with salt one with HCl.
Which one are YOU going to eat?
(unless dissolved in water,
where it is a strong acid)
Keep in mind, it is not only the valence shells that account for
chemical properties. The ratio of charge to the size of the atom makes
a big difference. This is why the first member of each group has
unique properties. Also, there are so-called "diagonal relationships".
so that Be often acts like Al, B like Si, etc.
I'm also keeping in mind that helium is inert, like the other noble
gasses.
It 's not that your point is completely wrong - there is some good
logic behind what you propose. But it is easy to read too much into
the table.
BTW, xenon and krypton are not inert. Since about 1985, numerous xenon
(and a few krypton) compounds have been syntesized - XeF2, XeF4,
etc...
In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
11 Jul 2007 12:47:23 AM |
|
|
On Jul 10, 9:13?pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:19 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:56 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur?
Sometimes. The original grouping, due to Mendeleev, was due to
similarity of chemical properties
Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like other
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
No. Anyone who would mistake hydrogen (a colorless, explosive gas at
room temperature) for silvery, soft metals is singularly lacking in
observational skills :-)
But don't lithium, sodium and potassium metals, when pure, have to be
stored in jars of oil because they are so reactive they will combust
and/or explode when exposed to oxygen or water? My observation is
that they aren't much different from hydrogen in that regard.
Hydrogen doesn't react violently with water - in fact, it doesn't
react with it at all.
Huh? You were contrasting the explosive nature of
hydrogen gas with that of silvery soft metals.
When I pointed out that the silvery soft metals
in question are, in fact, explosive, you bring up
this strawman argument that hydrogen doesn't react
with water.
You can't have it both ways. Hydrogen is either
explosive or it isn't. Get your story straight
and try to explain how hydrogen differs from
lithium. This making things up as you go along
just makes you look foolish.
And what does gas vs. solid have to do with anything? Is bromine not
a Halogen because it's a liquid while fluorine and chlorine are
gasses?
And iodine is a solid - but we are talking about group I, not the
halogens.
The subject is the entire periodic table and why
hydrogen AND helium don't belong in the groups
they are commonly shown in. If they have properties
consistent with similar elements with similar
outer electron shell configurations then the grouping
is warranted, even if there are distinct differences.
All the alkali metals have a VERY similar physical
appreance,
Is hydrogen similar to lithium when it's "metallic"
such as at the core of Jupiter?
going from lithium (which nevertheless, is the most unusual
of the bunch) up to cesium. They all lose electorns very easily - all
more than hydrogen (look at the electrochemical series)
Seriously, it is actually diffficult to think of examples where
hydrogen acts ANYTHING like the alkali metals. The most common valence
of hydrogen is +1, like the alkalis, but it can also be -1 (in
hydride), which NEVER happens for alkali metals.
NaCl is a salt, HCl is a corrosive gas
Salt isn't corrosive?
Put out two plates of linguiini. Season one with salt one with HCl.
Which one are YOU going to eat?
These analogies of yours are quite meaningless,
aren't they? Put out two cars. Park one next to
the Atlantic Ocean and the other next to Lake
Michigan. Which one will suffer more damage after
6 months?
Again, you are trying to contrast things as if
they had dissimilar properties when they, in fact,
have similar properties differing only in degree.
(unless dissolved in water,
where it is a strong acid)
Keep in mind, it is not only the valence shells that account for
chemical properties. The ratio of charge to the size of the atom makes
a big difference. This is why the first member of each group has
unique properties. Also, there are so-called "diagonal relationships".
so that Be often acts like Al, B like Si, etc.
I'm also keeping in mind that helium is inert, like the other noble
gasses.
It 's not that your point is completely wrong - there is some good
logic behind what you propose. But it is easy to read too much into
the table.
I don't think I'm reading too much into it.
A new table based on quantum mechanics might
be reading too much into it.
BTW, xenon and krypton are not inert. Since about 1985, numerous xenon
(and a few krypton) compounds have been syntesized - XeF2, XeF4,
etc...
And under duress hydrogen is a metal.
In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
11 Jul 2007 06:25:17 AM |
|
|
On Jul 11, 1:47 am, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:13?pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:19 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:56 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur?
Sometimes. The original grouping, due to Mendeleev, was due to
similarity of chemical properties
Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like other
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
No. Anyone who would mistake hydrogen (a colorless, explosive gas at
room temperature) for silvery, soft metals is singularly lacking in
observational skills :-)
But don't lithium, sodium and potassium metals, when pure, have to be
stored in jars of oil because they are so reactive they will combust
and/or explode when exposed to oxygen or water? My observation is
that they aren't much different from hydrogen in that regard.
Hydrogen doesn't react violently with water - in fact, it doesn't
react with it at all.
Huh? You were contrasting the explosive nature of
hydrogen gas with that of silvery soft metals.
When I pointed out that the silvery soft metals
in question are, in fact, explosive, you bring up
this strawman argument that hydrogen doesn't react
with water.
To call something simply "explosive" is incredibly dense. TNT is
"explosive", therefore, TNT should be in the same column of the
periodic table as hydrogen, according to you.
Sodium reacts violently with water - hydrgoen doesn't react at all.
Hydrogen react violently with oxygen - sodium reacts slowly (and NON-
violently) with oxygen.
The reason for storing alkali metals under oil is primarily to prevent
reaction with water vapor, not oxygen.
You can't have it both ways. Hydrogen is either
explosive or it isn't.
Hmmm. Is TNT explosive?
Hook it to a blasing cap - it's explosive.
Shoot it with a bullet - it's NOT explosive.
"Does not compute! Does not compute! Warning! Danger Will Robinson!"
Get your story straight
and try to explain how hydrogen differs from
lithium. This making things up as you go along
just makes you look foolish.
If you can SEE the difference between lithium and hydrogen, you need
your eyes checked badly.
And what does gas vs. solid have to do with anything? Is bromine not
a Halogen because it's a liquid while fluorine and chlorine are
gasses?
And iodine is a solid - but we are talking about group I, not the
halogens.
The subject is the entire periodic table and why
hydrogen AND helium don't belong in the groups
they are commonly shown in. If they have properties
consistent with similar elements with similar
outer electron shell configurations then the grouping
is warranted, even if there are distinct differences.
Yes, and your brilliant idea was to put helium in the alkali earth
category, with beryllium/magnesium/calcium, which is so ludicrous,
that you either never had a chemistry class, or you are 10 years old.
All the alkali metals have a VERY similar physical
appreance,
Is hydrogen similar to lithium when it's "metallic"
such as at the core of Jupiter?
Somewhat. If we are going to compare elements at vastly different
pressure/temperatures/conditions, we wold find that almost everything
is "the same"
going from lithium (which nevertheless, is the most unusual
of the bunch) up to cesium. They all lose electorns very easily - all
more than hydrogen (look at the electrochemical series)
Seriously, it is actually diffficult to think of examples where
hydrogen acts ANYTHING like the alkali metals. The most common valence
of hydrogen is +1, like the alkalis, but it can also be -1 (in
hydride), which NEVER happens for alkali metals.
NaCl is a salt, HCl is a corrosive gas
Salt isn't corrosive?
Put out two plates of linguiini. Season one with salt one with HCl.
Which one are YOU going to eat?
These analogies of yours are quite meaningless,
aren't they? Put out two cars. Park one next to
the Atlantic Ocean and the other next to Lake
Michigan. Which one will suffer more damage after
6 months?
Again, your eyesight is quit terrible:
LiCl, NaCl, KCl, RbCl, CsCl, LiF, NaF, RbF, LiBr, NaBr, KBr, RbBr are
all ionic solids, with large lattice energies, usually white, with
ionic bonding.
HF, HCl, HBr, HI are all gases, acids (all strong except for HF),
which feature covalent bonding with partial ioic character.
Put KBr and NaCl in front of a chemist, he'll have to ddo some tests
to tell which is which. Put HCl and NaCl in front of you, but only
you, and you would have apparently great difficuly telling a gas from
a solid.
Again, you are trying to contrast things as if
they had dissimilar properties when they, in fact,
have similar properties differing only in degree.
Dissolve 1 mole of NaCl in L water, what is the pH?
Dissolve 1 mole of HCl in 1L water, what is the pH?
(unless dissolved in water,
where it is a strong acid)
Keep in mind, it is not only the valence shells that account for
chemical properties. The ratio of charge to the size of the atom makes
a big difference. This is why the first member of each group has
unique properties. Also, there are so-called "diagonal relationships".
so that Be often acts like Al, B like Si, etc.
I'm also keeping in mind that helium is inert, like the other noble
gasses.
It 's not that your point is completely wrong - there is some good
logic behind what you propose. But it is easy to read too much into
the table.
I don't think I'm reading too much into it.
A new table based on quantum mechanics might
be reading too much into it.
OK, where do you put chromium and copper? In other words, how do you
account for electron configuration 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s1 3d5 ????
BTW, xenon and krypton are not inert. Since about 1985, numerous xenon
(and a few krypton) compounds have been syntesized - XeF2, XeF4,
etc...
And under duress hydrogen is a metal.
In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
11 Jul 2007 05:15:55 PM |
|
|
On Jul 11, 6:25 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 1:47 am, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:13?pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:19 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:56 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictablesuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of science. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theperiodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temperature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into groups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to displace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and makes Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing valence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It 97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to quantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Second, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably misplaced. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur?
Sometimes. The original grouping, due to Mendeleev, was due to
similarity of chemical properties
Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like other
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
No. Anyone who would mistake hydrogen (a colorless, explosive gas at
room temperature) for silvery, soft metals is singularly lacking in
observational skills :-)
But don't lithium, sodium and potassium metals, when pure, have to be
stored in jars of oil because they are so reactive they will combust
and/or explode when exposed to oxygen or water? My observation is
that they aren't much different from hydrogen in that regard.
Hydrogen doesn't react violently with water - in fact, it doesn't
react with it at all.
Huh? You were contrasting the explosive nature of
hydrogen gas with that of silvery soft metals.
When I pointed out that the silvery soft metals
in question are, in fact, explosive, you bring up
this strawman argument that hydrogen doesn't react
with water.
To call something simply "explosive" is incredibly dense.
Then why did you say it? Are you incredibly dense?
TNT is
"explosive", therefore, TNT should be in the same column of the
periodic table as hydrogen, according to you.
TNT isn't an element, is it?
Sodium reacts violently with water - hydrgoen doesn't react at all.
Hydrogen react violently with oxygen - sodium reacts slowly (and NON-
violently) with oxygen.
So there's no relationship of the violent reactions (whatever
the circumstances are) to the single electron in the outer shell?
That it's just a coincidence, like the violent reaction of TNT?
The reason for storing alkali metals under oil is primarily to prevent
reaction with water vapor, not oxygen.
Is pure hydrogen stored with pure oxygen or are they kept seperate?
You can't have it both ways. Hydrogen is either
explosive or it isn't.
Hmmm. Is TNT explosive?
Hook it to a blasing cap - it's explosive.
Shoot it with a bullet - it's NOT explosive.
"Does not compute! Does not compute! Warning! Danger Will Robinson!"
This is what happens when chemists try to do math.
Get your story straight
and try to explain how hydrogen differs from
lithium. This making things up as you go along
just makes you look foolish.
If you can SEE the difference between lithium and hydrogen, you need
your eyes checked badly.
I thought you said there WAS a visible difference? Are you
changing your story again?
And what does gas vs. solid have to do with anything? Is bromine not
a Halogen because it's a liquid while fluorine and chlorine are
gasses?
And iodine is a solid - but we are talking about group I, not the
halogens.
The subject is the entire periodic table and why
hydrogen AND helium don't belong in the groups
they are commonly shown in. If they have properties
consistent with similar elements with similar
outer electron shell configurations then the grouping
is warranted, even if there are distinct differences.
Yes, and your brilliant idea was to put helium in the alkali earth
category,
I never said that. I said helium was in the noble gas group.
with beryllium/magnesium/calcium, which is so ludicrous,
Which is why I didn't say it.
that you either never had a chemistry class,
I'll have you know, sirrah, that I majored in chemistry at
the University of Illinois.
or you are 10 years old.
33 years ago. And I flunked out and became an electronics engineer.
Which lead to my becoming an IT administrator.
Which lead to my becoming a database administrator.
Doing environmental remediation.
So I've come full circle back to chemistry again. Spooky, eh?
All the alkali metals have a VERY similar physical
appreance,
Is hydrogen similar to lithium when it's "metallic"
such as at the core of Jupiter?
Somewhat. If we are going to compare elements at vastly different
pressure/temperatures/conditions, we wold find that almost everything
is "the same"
Except how the elements interact, that's why we have a periodic
table. Knowing that some things are gas and others solid doesn't
help all that much.
going from lithium (which nevertheless, is the most unusual
of the bunch) up to cesium. They all lose electorns very easily - all
more than hydrogen (look at the electrochemical series)
Seriously, it is actually diffficult to think of examples where
hydrogen acts ANYTHING like the alkali metals. The most common valence
of hydrogen is +1, like the alkalis, but it can also be -1 (in
hydride), which NEVER happens for alkali metals.
NaCl is a salt, HCl is a corrosive gas
Salt isn't corrosive?
Put out two plates of linguiini. Season one with salt one with HCl.
Which one are YOU going to eat?
These analogies of yours are quite meaningless,
aren't they? Put out two cars. Park one next to
the Atlantic Ocean and the other next to Lake
Michigan. Which one will suffer more damage after
6 months?
Again, your eyesight is quit terrible:
LiCl, NaCl, KCl, RbCl, CsCl, LiF, NaF, RbF, LiBr, NaBr, KBr, RbBr are
all ionic solids, with large lattice energies, usually white, with
ionic bonding.
One lithium atom bonds to one fluorine atom.
One lithium atom bonds to one chlorine atom.
One lithium atom bonds to one bromine atom.
HF, HCl, HBr, HI are all gases, acids (all strong except for HF),
which feature covalent bonding with partial ioic character.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one fluorine atom.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one chlorine atom.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one bromine atom.
Isn't THAT why hydrogen is shown in Group IA (and also VIIA),
and nothing to do with gas/solid, latice energies, color or
ionic/covalent bonding?
Put KBr and NaCl in front of a chemist, he'll have to ddo some tests
to tell which is which. Put HCl and NaCl in front of you, but only
you, and you would have apparently great difficuly telling a gas from
a solid.
Why do you have a hair up your ***** concerning gas vs. solid?
Shouldn't such issues be of concern AFTER you've decided that
hydrogen makes 1 to 1 bondings just like alkali metals and
halogens?
Again, you are trying to contrast things as if
they had dissimilar properties when they, in fact,
have similar properties differing only in degree.
Dissolve 1 mole of NaCl in L water, what is the pH?
Dissolve 1 mole of HCl in 1L water, what is the pH?
***** if I know, I flunked out of chemistry.
But you should see the database hoops I have to jump through
when doing pH-based soil remediation based on TACO
(Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives).
<quote>
What is TACO?
TACO is the Illinois EPA's method for developing
remediation objectives for contaminated soil and
groundwater. These remediation objectives protect
human health and take into account site conditions
and land use. Remediation objectives generated
by TACO are risk-based and site-specific.
</quote>
Chemistry coming back to haunt me again.
(unless dissolved in water,
where it is a strong acid)
Keep in mind, it is not only the valence shells that account for
chemical properties. The ratio of charge to the size of the atom makes
a big difference. This is why the first member of each group has
unique properties. Also, there are so-called "diagonal relationships".
so that Be often acts like Al, B like Si, etc.
I'm also keeping in mind that helium is inert, like the other noble
gasses.
It 's not that your point is completely wrong - there is some good
logic behind what you propose. But it is easy to read too much into
the table.
I don't think I'm reading too much into it.
A new table based on quantum mechanics might
be reading too much into it.
OK, where do you put chromium and copper? In other words, how do you
account for electron configuration 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s1 3d5 ????
Hey, _I_ didn't create the periodic table, ok?
Neither am I saying there's anything wrong with it based on
quantum mechnics.
BTW, xenon and krypton are not inert. Since about 1985, numerous xenon
(and a few krypton) compounds have been syntesized - XeF2, XeF4,
etc...
And under duress hydrogen is a metal.
In some
periodic tables, either hydrogen, or both hydrogen and helium, are
separated from the other elements
The Lanthanide and Actinide Series elements are f orbitals but there
only 14 possible. Lutecium and Lawrencium are D orbitals and should
then be be with the transition elements.
With these simple changes the pariodic table is 100% correct with
respect to quantum mechanics!
Sincerely
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
11 Jul 2007 06:28:00 PM |
|
|
On Jul 11, 6:15 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 11, 6:25 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 1:47 am, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 9:13?pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 8:19 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:48 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:56 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.co=
m>
wrote:
On Jul 10, 3:29 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:34 am, wrote:
On 21 juin, 21:40, taylor <j...@taylor.com> wrote:
A lot of amazing things are happening in science. This =
story is about
one man re-inventing theperiodictableso that it is easy=
to
understand. Imagine that!
The fact that someone would dare change theperiodictabl=
esuggests
more great things are about to happen in the world of s=
cience. It is
revolutionary because its radical new design tears down=
the current
ideas and starts again from scratch.
You can decide for yourself if this man has made theper=
iodictable
easy to understand - simply go tohttp://www.rotaperiod.=
com/
Highlights:
- It uses 12 columns instead of 18
- It re-draws the line between metals and non-metals
- It emphasizes the strength of the 4+ elements (temper=
ature, organic
chemistry)
- It does not classify the 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+ metals into g=
roups V, VI,
VII, and VIII (or IUPAC 5, 6, 7, 8)
- It uses the vertical and horizontal of the page to di=
splace elements
in a new way
- It incorporates the Lanthanide and Actinide Series el=
ements
It is called the Rota Period (or Rota's Period) and mak=
es Chemistry
easier to understand because it is based upon showing v=
alence/
oxidation (which determine how elements combine).
There is a problem about the official periodic table. It =
97% correct
but three elements are at the wrong place, according to q=
uantum
mechanics. First helium, like hydrogen is a S orbital. Se=
cond, the
other rare gases are in a P orbital. Placing Helium with =
the rare
gases is wrong according to quantum mechanics.
No.
You are suggesting putting helium with beryllium/magnesium/=
calcium,
which is frankly absurd. Actually, hydrogen is probably mis=
placed. It
is certainly not an alkali metal like the rest of its group.
Doesn't the grouping reflect the completness of the outermost
electron shell where chemical reactions occur?
Sometimes. The original grouping, due to Mendeleev, was due to
similarity of chemical properties
Doesn't the single
electron in the outermost shell make hydrogen behave like oth=
er
elements with a single electron in its outermost shell (alkali
metals)?
No. Anyone who would mistake hydrogen (a colorless, explosive g=
as at
room temperature) for silvery, soft metals is singularly lackin=
g in
observational skills :-)
But don't lithium, sodium and potassium metals, when pure, have t=
o be
stored in jars of oil because they are so reactive they will comb=
ust
and/or explode when exposed to oxygen or water? My observation is
that they aren't much different from hydrogen in that regard.
Hydrogen doesn't react violently with water - in fact, it doesn't
react with it at all.
Huh? You were contrasting the explosive nature of
hydrogen gas with that of silvery soft metals.
When I pointed out that the silvery soft metals
in question are, in fact, explosive, you bring up
this strawman argument that hydrogen doesn't react
with water.
To call something simply "explosive" is incredibly dense.
Then why did you say it? Are you incredibly dense?
No, but apparently you are.
TNT is
"explosive", therefore, TNT should be in the same column of the
periodic table as hydrogen, according to you.
TNT isn't an element, is it?
No, but since you know so little about elements, I thought I'd use an
example you might have heard of.
Sodium reacts violently with water - hydrgoen doesn't react at all.
Hydrogen react violently with oxygen - sodium reacts slowly (and NON-
violently) with oxygen.
So there's no relationship of the violent reactions (whatever
the circumstances are) to the single electron in the outer shell?
That it's just a coincidence, like the violent reaction of TNT?
TNT reacts violently only under certain conditions. C4, another
explosie, can be be safely set on fire - it won't explode. Fire a
bullet through TNT - it doesn;t explode. Mysterious, huh?
The reason for storing alkali metals under oil is primarily to prevent
reaction with water vapor, not oxygen.
Is pure hydrogen stored with pure oxygen or are they kept seperate?
It is kept separate. Somehow, you can't tell the difference between
oxygen and water.
Here's a table
Element Reacts violentyly w/ water Reacts
violently w/ oxygen
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Hydrogen NO YES
Lithium YES
NO
Sodium YES NO
Potassium YES NO
Rubidiium YES NO
In other words, this table shows that hydrogen is "the same" as the
alkali metals, at least in your very confused mind.
You can't have it both ways. Hydrogen is either
explosive or it isn't.
Hmmm. Is TNT explosive?
Hook it to a blasing cap - it's explosive.
Shoot it with a bullet - it's NOT explosive.
"Does not compute! Does not compute! Warning! Danger Will Robinson!"
This is what happens when chemists try to do math.
No, when "engineers" try to do science. Just stick to plugging into
formulae that someone else gives you and you don't understand, like
most engineers.
Get your story straight
and try to explain how hydrogen differs from
lithium. This making things up as you go along
just makes you look foolish.
If you can SEE the difference between lithium and hydrogen, you need
your eyes checked badly.
I thought you said there WAS a visible difference? Are you
changing your story again?
No, typo, sorry - my bad. If you CAN'T see a difference between
hydrogen and lithium, maybe your should increase your dosage of
lithium. (Just joking :-)
And what does gas vs. solid have to do with anything? Is bromine =
not
a Halogen because it's a liquid while fluorine and chlorine are
gasses?
And iodine is a solid - but we are talking about group I, not the
halogens.
The subject is the entire periodic table and why
hydrogen AND helium don't belong in the groups
they are commonly shown in. If they have properties
consistent with similar elements with similar
outer electron shell configurations then the grouping
is warranted, even if there are distinct differences.
Yes, and your brilliant idea was to put helium in the alkali earth
category,
I never said that. I said helium was in the noble gas group.
Why, if your point is to follow "Quantum mechanics" about which you
know even less than you do about chemistry?
Helium is 1s2. Why should it be in the same column as 2s2 2p6, 3s2
3p6, 4s2 4p6, etc... at least according to your "quantum mechanics"
view. Shouldn't it go with beryllium 1s2 2s2, and the other alkali
earths? Helium has almost as much in common with beryllium as hydrogen
does with lithium.
with beryllium/magnesium/calcium, which is so ludicrous,
Which is why I didn't say it.
that you either never had a chemistry class,
I'll have you know, sirrah, that I majored in chemistry at
the University of Illinois.
or you are 10 years old.
33 years ago. And I flunked out and became an electronics engineer.
So why are so willing to argue about something that you don't know
anything about? I know, because you are an engineer....
Which lead to my becoming an IT administrator.
Which lead to my becoming a database administrator.
Doing environmental remediation.
So I've come full circle back to chemistry again. Spooky, eh?
The environment is doomed.
All the alkali metals have a VERY similar physical
appreance,
Is hydrogen similar to lithium when it's "metallic"
such as at the core of Jupiter?
Somewhat. If we are going to compare elements at vastly different
pressure/temperatures/conditions, we wold find that almost everything
is "the same"
Except how the elements interact, that's why we have a periodic
table. Knowing that some things are gas and others solid doesn't
help all that much.
At least, hopefully even a computer programmer can recognize the
difference betweeb a solid and a gas. In this case, no such luck.
While the halogens vary from gas to liquid to solids, ALL the alkali
metals are solids, whereas hydrogen is a gas. Hmm.... why do you think
that is?
going from lithium (which nevertheless, is the most unusual
of the bunch) up to cesium. They all lose electorns very easily - a=
ll
more than hydrogen (look at the electrochemical series)
Seriously, it is actually diffficult to think of examples where
hydrogen acts ANYTHING like the alkali metals. The most common =
valence
of hydrogen is +1, like the alkalis, but it can also be -1 (in
hydride), which NEVER happens for alkali metals.
NaCl is a salt, HCl is a corrosive gas
Salt isn't corrosive?
Put out two plates of linguiini. Season one with salt one with HCl.
Which one are YOU going to eat?
These analogies of yours are quite meaningless,
aren't they? Put out two cars. Park one next to
the Atlantic Ocean and the other next to Lake
Michigan. Which one will suffer more damage after
6 months?
Again, your eyesight is quite terrible:
LiCl, NaCl, KCl, RbCl, CsCl, LiF, NaF, RbF, LiBr, NaBr, KBr, RbBr are
all ionic solids, with large lattice energies, usually white, with
ionic bonding.
One lithium atom bonds to one fluorine atom.
One lithium atom bonds to one chlorine atom.
One lithium atom bonds to one bromine atom.
No wonder you flunked out. Did you even pass HIGH SCHOOL chemistry?
We write ***** like NaCl just to show that thae balance of charges. Of
course, there is NO SUCH THING. Sodium chloride as a solid has NO
"NaCl" molecules. If you think so, you are both wrong and laughable.
In the crystal, each sodium is surrounded by SIX chloride IONS, and
each chloride ION is surrounded by SIX sodium ions. Simple crystal
structures are taught in freshamn gen chem 1, so you didn't even last
that long.
HF, HCl, HBr, HI are all gases, acids (all strong except for HF),
which feature covalent bonding with partial ioic character.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one fluorine atom.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one chlorine atom.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one bromine atom.
Did you last in chemistry long enough to learn the difference between
atoms and ions, and between ionic and covalent bonding?
Isn't THAT why hydrogen is shown in Group IA (and also VIIA),
and nothing to do with gas/solid, latice energies, color or
ionic/covalent bonding?
It is put there because they had to put it someplace (hydrogen is kind
of an important element to just leave off the table). The problem is
that its position is seized upon by the clueless as implying far more
than its position should imply.
Take it from a Ph.D. in chemistry - hydrogen is NOTHING like the
alkali metals, except that it has 1 s valence electron . As far as
properties go, anytime you are tempted to think of hydrogen with the
alkali metals -DON'T. You'd be wrong 99% of the time to think of
hydrogen as being like lithium.
Put KBr and NaCl in front of a chemist, he'll have to ddo some tests
to tell which is which. Put HCl and NaCl in front of you, but only
you, and you would have apparently great difficuly telling a gas from
a solid.
Why do you have a hair up your ***** concerning gas vs. solid?
Because telling the difference between a solid and a gas is SO EASY,
an ENGINEER (or caveman) can do it.
Shouldn't such issues be of concern AFTER you've decided that
hydrogen makes 1 to 1 bondings just like alkali metals and
halogens?
No, because the bonding is COMPLETELY different, and the compunds are
COMPLETELY different. The whole point of "periodic" properties is
similarities of the compounds.
NaCl, KCl, and RbCl are extremely similar - and completely different
from HCl
Again, you are trying to contrast things as if
they had dissimilar properties when they, in fact,
have similar properties differing only in degree.
Dissolve 1 mole of NaCl in L water, what is the pH?
Dissolve 1 mole of HCl in 1L water, what is the pH?
***** if I know, I flunked out of chemistry.
Here's a hint - one of them will eat through your skin in less than 4
minutes, and the other one won't. And who says chemistry isn't usful?
But you should see the database hoops I have to jump through
when doing pH-based soil remediation based on TACO
(Tiered Approach to Corrective ...
You should probably learn more chemistry, especially if you can't
calculate the pH of 1 M solution of either HCl or NaCl. Most
reasonably intelligent high school students can do this in their
heads...
read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Re-inventing the Wheel: a new periodic table |
11 Jul 2007 08:56:29 PM |
|
|
On Jul 11, 6:28 pm, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 6:15 pm, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
On Jul 11, 6:25 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 11, 1:47 am, "mensana...@aol.compost" <mensana...@aol.com>
wrote:
To call something simply "explosive" is incredibly dense.
Then why did you say it? Are you incredibly dense?
No, but apparently you are.
That still doesn't explain why you said it.
TNT is
"explosive", therefore, TNT should be in the same column of the
periodic table as hydrogen, according to you.
TNT isn't an element, is it?
No,
Says the Ph.D. chemist.
but since you know so little about elements, I thought I'd use an
example you might have heard of.
That's the definition of "strawman". Go check with someone who
has a Ph.D. in logic.
Sodium reacts violently with water - hydrgoen doesn't react at all.
Hydrogen react violently with oxygen - sodium reacts slowly (and NON-
violently) with oxygen.
So there's no relationship of the violent reactions (whatever
the circumstances are) to the single electron in the outer shell?
That it's just a coincidence, like the violent reaction of TNT?
TNT reacts violently only under certain conditions. C4, another
explosie, can be be safely set on fire - it won't explode. Fire a
bullet through TNT - it doesn;t explode. Mysterious, huh?
Not mysterious at all. TNT isn't lithium nor is it hydrogen.
The reason for storing alkali metals under oil is primarily to prevent
reaction with water vapor, not oxygen.
Is pure hydrogen stored with pure oxygen or are they kept seperate?
It is kept separate. Somehow, you can't tell the difference between
oxygen and water.
I can tell the difference between the fuel and the "ash" of its
oxidation. Water is the "ash" of hydrogen oxidation. Duh.
Here's a table
Poorly made. If only we had an ENGINEER.
Element Reacts violentyly w/ water Reacts
violently w/ oxygen
=========================================
Hydrogen NO YES
Lithium YES
NO
Sodium YES NO
Potassium YES NO
Rubidiium YES NO
In other words, this table shows that hydrogen is "the same" as the
alkali metals, at least in your very confused mind.
_I_ never said it was the same as alkali metals. All _I've_ ever said
was that it can have violent reactions because of the single electron
in its outermost shell. You seem to think that I'm saying that since
this property is also characteristic of alkali metals (which also
have
a single electron in their outermost shells) then all of hydrogen's
properties must be the same as alkali metals. But I'm not saying that.
Hmmm. Is TNT explosive?
Hook it to a blasing cap - it's explosive.
Shoot it with a bullet - it's NOT explosive.
"Does not compute! Does not compute! Warning! Danger Will Robinson!"
This is what happens when chemists try to do math.
No, when "engineers" try to do science.
It was your analogy, not mine.
Just stick to plugging into
formulae that someone else gives you and you don't understand, like
most engineers.
I'm real good at that. It's not my job to know whether something
is right, just that it's consistent - something that's beyond
the understanding of scientists.
If you can SEE the difference between lithium and hydrogen, you need
your eyes checked badly.
I thought you said there WAS a visible difference? Are you
changing your story again?
No, typo, sorry - my bad. If you CAN'T see a difference between
hydrogen and lithium, maybe your should increase your dosage of
lithium. (Just joking :-)
Yes, and your brilliant idea was to put helium in the alkali earth
category,
I never said that. I said helium was in the noble gas group.
Why, if your point is to follow "Quantum mechanics" about which you
know even less than you do about chemistry?
That's not my point. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Helium is 1s2. Why should it be in the same column as 2s2 2p6, 3s2
3p6, 4s2 4p6, etc... at least according to your "quantum mechanics"
I guess that answers my question.
view. Shouldn't it go with beryllium 1s2 2s2, and the other alkali
earths? Helium has almost as much in common with beryllium as hydrogen
does with lithium.
Good thing I never said it belonged in the alkali earth group.
with beryllium/magnesium/calcium, which is so ludicrous,
Which is why I didn't say it.
that you either never had a chemistry class,
I'll have you know, sirrah, that I majored in chemistry at
the University of Illinois.
or you are 10 years old.
33 years ago. And I flunked out and became an electronics engineer.
So why are so willing to argue about something that you don't know
anything about?
I've never let that stop me. That's how you learn.
I know, because you are an engineer....
Right. Unlike chemists, my learning didn't stop when I left school.
Which lead to my becoming an IT administrator.
Which lead to my becoming a database administrator.
Doing environmental remediation.
So I've come full circle back to chemistry again. Spooky, eh?
The environment is doomed.
Hate to disappoint you, but I don't DO the risk assessment.
I manage the data that the scientists can't find their way around
even with a white cane and a dog.
Somewhat. If we are going to compare elements at vastly different
pressure/temperatures/conditions, we wold find that almost everything
is "the same"
Except how the elements interact, that's why we have a periodic
table. Knowing that some things are gas and others solid doesn't
help all that much.
At least, hopefully even a computer programmer can recognize the
difference betweeb a solid and a gas. In this case, no such luck.
I don't deal with reality, I deal with numbers.
While the halogens vary from gas to liquid to solids, ALL the alkali
metals are solids, whereas hydrogen is a gas. Hmm.... why do you think
that is?
Because it's the lightest? Just as the lightest halogen is a gas?
What do I win?
Again, your eyesight is quite terrible:
LiCl, NaCl, KCl, RbCl, CsCl, LiF, NaF, RbF, LiBr, NaBr, KBr, RbBr are
all ionic solids, with large lattice energies, usually white, with
ionic bonding.
One lithium atom bonds to one fluorine atom.
One lithium atom bonds to one chlorine atom.
One lithium atom bonds to one bromine atom.
No wonder you flunked out. Did you even pass HIGH SCHOOL chemistry?
Yeah, and that's the reason I flunked out. I did so poorly in high
school chemistry that I and one other student were invited to take a
chemistry scholarship test. I should have known from that test that
the reason I saw further than others was because I was surrounded
by midgets.
We write ***** like NaCl just to show that thae balance of charges. Of
course, there is NO SUCH THING. Sodium chloride as a solid has NO
"NaCl" molecules. If you think so, you are both wrong and laughable.
In the crystal, each sodium is surrounded by SIX chloride IONS, and
each chloride ION is surrounded by SIX sodium ions. Simple crystal
structures are taught in freshamn gen chem 1, so you didn't even last
that long.
Ok, I admit the real reason I flunked out was because it was a
liberal ARTS college. Couldn't hack that non-technical crap.
I actually did ok in chemistry, but I thought that might bruise your
ego.
HF, HCl, HBr, HI are all gases, acids (all strong except for HF),
which feature covalent bonding with partial ioic character.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one fluorine atom.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one chlorine atom.
One hydrogen atom bonds to one bromine atom.
Did you last in chemistry long enough to learn the difference between
atoms and ions, and between ionic and covalent bonding?
Sure, at the time.
Isn't THAT why hydrogen is shown in Group IA (and also VIIA),
and nothing to do with gas/solid, latice energies, color or
ionic/covalent bonding?
It is put there because they had to put it someplace
Oh, that explains everything.
(hydrogen is kind
of an important element to just leave off the table).
Duh.
The problem is
that its position is seized upon by the clueless as implying far more
than its position should imply.
Far more? I never said hydrogen had to have the same properties
as alkali metals. All I've ever said was that it has a single
electron in its outer shell and reacts violently - same as alkali
metals, but never far more than was warranted, that's your delusion.
Take it from a Ph.D. in chemistry - hydrogen is NOTHING like the
alkali metals, except that it has 1 s valence electron .
So it DOES belong in group IA.
As far as
properties go, anytime you are tempted to think of hydrogen with the
alkali metals -DON'T.
Don't fret, I never did.
You'd be wrong 99% of the time to think of
hydrogen as being like lithium.
Put KBr and NaCl in front of a chemist, he'll have to ddo some tests
to tell which is which. Put HCl and NaCl in front of you, but only
you, and you would have apparently great difficuly telling a gas from
a solid.
Why do you have a hair up your ***** concerning gas vs. solid?
Because telling the difference between a solid and a gas is SO EASY,
an ENGINEER (or caveman) can do it.
But you still haven't explained why this is important. It's also easy
to tell the difference between red and blue litmus paper (even a
chemist
can do that). But what does it MEAN?
Shouldn't such issues be of concern AFTER you've decided that
hydrogen makes 1 to 1 bondings just like alkali metals and
halogens?
No, because the bonding is COMPLETELY different, and the compunds are
COMPLETELY different. The whole point of "periodic" properties is
similarities of the compounds.
But aren't you the one who said the properties aren't as black and
white as the table implies? Changing your story again? Man, you're
hard to pin down.
NaCl, KCl, and RbCl are extremely similar - and completely different
from HCl
Except that they all hurt like a son-of-a-***** when you get one
in a cut.
Dissolve 1 mole of NaCl in L water, what is the pH?
Dissolve 1 mole of HCl in 1L water, what is the pH?
***** if I know, I flunked out of chemistry.
Here's a hint - one of them will eat through your skin in less than 4
minutes, and the other one won't. And who says chemistry isn't usful?
But you should see the database hoops I have to jump through
when doing pH-based soil remediation based on TACO
(Tiered Approach to Corrective ...
You should probably learn more chemistry,
Not necessary, I don't DO risk assessment.
especially if you can't
calculate the pH of 1 M solution of either HCl or NaCl.
It never comes up. I don't change the water, I merely observe it.
Most
reasonably intelligent high school students can do this in their
heads...
Yeah, but I bet they can't do this:
SELECT tblSites.SiteName, tblLocations.IEPALocationNumber,
tblSamples.TrueLocation, tblSamples.QAQCID,
Left$([QAQCType],3) AS QAQC, tblSampleAnalyses.SampleDate,
tblSampleEvent.SampleEventReportLabel,
tblSamples.SampleNumber,
tblSampleAnalyses.AnalysisID,
tblRefParameterGroups.ParameterGroupCode,
tblRefAnalyses.AnalysisTypeCode, tblResults.RunNumber,
tblRefParameters.ParameterReportLabel, tblResults.Result,
tblResults.Qualifier, tblResults.LabQualifier,
tblRefUnitOfMeasure.Unit,
tblRefParameters.Surrogate, tblSamples.SampleMatrixID,
InStr([CollectorComment],"-") AS hyph,
tblSamples.SampleDepthFrom,
tblSamples.SampleDepthTo, Master_Lookup.Tbl__B_ICIng,
Master_Lookup.Tbl__B_ICInh, Master_Lookup.Tbl__B_CWIng,
Master_Lookup.Tbl__B_CWInh, Master_Lookup.Tbl__B_ClassI,
Master_Lookup.Tbl_pH_ClassI_Standard,
IIf(Val(lowest_value([tbl__B_icing],[tbl__B_icinh]))>0,
Val(lowest_value([tbl__B_icing],[tbl__B_icinh])),Null) AS
IClow, lowest_value_who([tbl__B_icing],[tbl__B_icinh],"G","H")
AS
ICwho, IIf(Val(lowest_value([tbl__B_cwing],[tbl__B_cwinh]))>0,
Val(lowest_value([tbl__B_cwing],[tbl__B_cwinh])),Null) AS
CWlow, lowest_value_who([tbl__B_cwing],[tbl__B_cwinh],"G","H")
AS
CWwho, Val(Format$(IIf([unit]="ug/kg",[result]/1000,
[result]),"0.000")) AS
the_ppm_result, IIf([the_ppm_result]>[iclow],"!"," ") AS
icx, IIf([the_ppm_result]>[cwlow],"!"," ") AS
cwx, [icx] & [cwx] AS
xall, Master_Lookup.Tbl_pH_range, tblRefParameters.CASNumber,
tblResults.SDG
FROM tblSites
INNER JOIN ((tblSampleEvent
INNER JOIN (tblRefQAQCTypes
INNER JOIN ((tblLocations
INNER JOIN tblSamples
ON tblLocations.LocationID = tblSamples.TrueLocation)
INNER JOIN tblZones
ON tblLocations.LocationID = tblZones.LocationID)
ON tblRefQAQCTypes.QAQCID = tblSamples.QAQCID)
ON tblSampleEvent.EventID = tblSamples.EventID)
INNER JOIN ((tblRefAnalyses
INNER JOIN tblSampleAnalyses
ON tblRefAnalyses.AnalysisID = tblSampleAnalyses.AnalysisID)
INNER JOIN (tblRefUnitOfMeasure
INNER JOIN ((tblRefParameterGroups
INNER JOIN (tblRefParameters
LEFT JOIN Master_Lookup
ON tblRefParameters.CASNumber = Master_Lookup.Tbl__A_cas)
ON tblRefParameterGroups.ParameterGroupID =
tblRefParameters.ParameterGroupID)
INNER JOIN tblResults
ON tblRefParameters.ParameterID = tblResults.ParameterID)
ON tblRefUnitOfMeasure.UnitID = tblResults.UnitID)
ON tblSampleAnalyses.SampleAnalysisID = tblResults.SampleAnalysisID)
ON tblSamples.SampleID = tblSampleAnalyses.SampleID)
ON tblSites.SiteID = tblLocations.SiteID
WHERE (((tblSites.SiteName) Like "*area 14*") AND
((tblSamples.QAQCID)=1 Or (tblSamples.QAQCID)=4) AND
((tblSampleAnalyses.AnalysisID) | | | | | | | | | | | |
