Talk:Types of periodic tables/Archive 1

Circular Table
Added by a wiki name matching the person the article cites as creating it? I've seen this before, but never credited to the here-claimed creator. Some citation is definitely needed here, 'cuz right now it smells like Original research and/or simple theft of ideas. DMacks 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I created this article to keep this content away from the main periodic table article. In contrast to the periodic table article I tend to be lenient on the content in this one. I leave it up to you if you want the content to be removed V8rik 21:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it is likely to be Original research but other entries in this article have been published on the web at the most (not a paper publication)

Circular form of periodic table as been created by me. I did submit this tablt to "Nature" long back but got it rejected. I will be very happy to know where you have seen this table before DMacks? And to assure you people, its an original creation by me...(not an theft of ideas). I already have many international publications to my credit and I don't indulge myself in such cheap activities. Mohdabubakr 14:59, 1 july 2006

After seeing this post i have checked for all the periodic tables available on Net, there are few other "Circular Form of Periodic Tables". But all of them are compeletely different from the periodic table that i have shown here. Most of them are complication and highly confusing. I will be happy Dmacks if you go through them all and compare with the one created by me. Mohdabubakr 20:21, 1 July 2006


 * Sounds reasonable. The article sounded like the whole concept of "circular" was the novel aspect, which is what sounded familiar to me. Not entirely sure exactly what is substantially different here or how significant it is, but in light of V8rik's goal for this article I no longer object regardless. DMacks 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand where you're coming from, but the section on the Circular Form has some major problems. The writing is hard to understand and, in places, ungrammatical. It is POV; the article gives the circular display and its author more credit and time than the other periodic tables in the article, and refers to the new form as "far more informative", "far more convenient", and so on, without providing any clear and obvious reasons for the vast differences. Even if the lengthy discussion is appropriate for this article (and it seems like, due to the length, it belongs in its own write-up), it needs to be fixed by someone who understands this representation (and the reasons behind it) better than I do. Qqwref 06:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Super Extended table
The Super - Extended periodic table, by Chris Dybala, is mentioned here. I can't find it anywhere on the web. I know Chris is a wikipedia user, couldn't he expand the paragraph and provide some more info? That paragraph, as is, is plainly useless. G. 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * edit: The Super Periodic Table includes all the superactinides, all of which are still theoretical, in addition to all the other elements which are normally included.

Published source
Hmm...this IP added some information here.... Can we get a journal source for this? --HappyCamper 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Illustration
It would be helpful if the text referred to the illustration more directly. Why was the illustrated peridoic table created? When?

JeremiahJohnson —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant Links
We have two links "New Periodic Table" and "Extended Periodic Table" that are linked to the same web site, where both formulations can be easily found. In addition to this, Dadabase of Periodic Tables also has "New Periodic Table" formulation image. Same thing about Janet's Left Step PT and Albert Tarantola Periodic table. Two links to the same thing! By having so many links to the same layout, aren't we over emphasizing this layout over others? I think one link for each would be sufficient. Drova (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

alternative one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.123.176 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Perfect Periodic Table
hi, first of all,sorry for my english. i really don't know where to post it, but i try to explain a new simple way to build the table,based on the orbits only, that suggest myself that there are some few misunderstanding in the original one.infact i think nature is clean,sharp and "periodic",and cannot make mistakes,or something out of a order,so let me show :

1 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  57 58  ? 60 61 62 63 ?

now as you can see,i add a row everytime the electron take a place where is instead unespected ( for ex. from ca to sc u expect 2882-2883 but we have 2882-2892) or better,when the 3d configuration reach the max for this level of complexity and change,into another shape.(like full the available orbit). now,if u see this, u can notice that we still have noble gas in the last column, plus 2 el.ni and pd, that are just the maximum possibility of complex in that configuration(like noble metal?)..(and in fact,they are a product of stars,when reduce and collapse.) in my idea, this table just explain how the intercative force between atoms and electrons can modify structural configuration,by reaching a maximum level,before the material change into another more stable shape, and it happens everytime with a "eight" base.(eight are the angle of a cube,and in fact,everytime u draw an hexagon,u also draw a cube..) things become more difficult over the element 56, when things become a little too complicated to do without more experience. but,the first part can make people think more about the "cyclicity" of materials.

I think that you are right about the Nature being "clean, sharp and periodic". If Periodic Table is arranged in accordance with the atomic structure (unlike the traditional one), it would also be "clean, sharp and periodic". Niels Bohr was the first to propose (1923) that the periodicity in the properties of the elements might be explained by the electronic structure of the atom. Recent developments in this field demonstrated just that. I recommend you to look at ADOMAH Periodic Table that is built strictly in accordance with Electron Configurations and Quantum Numbers. When you open this web site, move your mouse to the image and hold it there for a moment. You will see how Periodic Table transforms into sliced up Regular Tetrahedron. In traditional Periodic Table sfdp blocks also represent slices of the tetrahedron, only there they are out of order and out of proportion. Drova (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Theodore seems dead...
I'm going to remove the links to Theodor Benfey, as they link to a German philologist who died in 1881, and there doesn't seem to be an article about the Benfey who constructed an alternative periodic table. I don't know the first thing about him either, so I can't start a stub. --Osquar F (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There was another Theodore Benfey, who came up with the alternative PT formulation in 1960's.Drova (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Newly Inserted Image of the Spiral PT by Scholten
I have noticed that new image was recently inserted that shows Spiral PT formulation. There are hundreds alternative periodic table formulations. The question we might ask: How many images will we allow in this article? I do not think we should allow anyone just to come and insert another image of an alternative PT. This newly inserted PT is not that novel anyway. First spiral formulation was proposed by Charles Janet in 1927. Since that time many more spiral formulations popped up. Most notable spiral formulation is by Oxford professor Dr. Philip Stewart that appeared in Nature magazine. I believe that the only image that deserves to be shown in the article is Janet's Left Step Periodic Table (1928) that is currently used by the physicists and is second most popular formulation.

The article is confusing because it mixes tables (systems of rows and columns) with spirals and other forms. The first spiral was published by Chancourtois in 1862, seven years before Mendeleev's table; it was a helix, wound round a cylinder. The first flat spiral was that of Baumhauer, 1870. The next big step was made by Hackh, 1914, who separated short, medium and long pairs of coils for the short medium and long periods. Janet developed his left-step table from a helix wound on four concentric cylinders, and he also produced a flat spiral. Clark, 1933, was the first to give his spiral an oval outline. Longman (1951) and Benfey (not dead; an American chemistry professor) were both inspired by the colour version of Clark's oval in Life Magazine, 1949. Stewart's Chemical Galaxy was a development of Longman's design. There is thus plenty of material for an article on periodic spirals and helices, so I suggest this article be restricted to true tables. An overview article could be written on the Periodic System, outlining its abstract structure and leaving graphic representations to at least two separate articles. (Pjstewart (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

I am deleting the newlyinserted image. To every one, please refrain to add new images to the article. Drova (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

An article on Alternative periodic tables should really try to show the variety of table designs. Something like 5-10 would be natural. Those who want to do something constructive for this article could find and insert suitable images instead of reducing the assortment to 1. OlavN (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Those, who want to see more images could go to Links, especially the link to Periodic table database that also displays the one by Scholten. If we allow wikiers to insert Alternative PT images at will it would be a problem. Drova (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about getting the reference to Alternative periodic tables to be included in the See also section of the article about the Periodic table? That's where people usually look for more reference locations rather than in the text, where Alternative periodic tables is referred in the article.WFPM (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Please, feel free to do it. Drova (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
'Paul Giguere 3-D periodic table' external link is dead; has been removed; does anyone know of a similar page? (Link was http://chemlab.pc.maricopa.edu/periodic/giguere.html, accessed 8/2/07.) Cowplopmorris 17:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why did somebody kill the link to the Janet Periodic Table in the Reference Section? It is still accessible via the link in the text of the article, but most people look for links in the reference section.WFPM (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ref to Philip J. Stewart on Charles Janet
This reference to a paper by Philip J. Stewart on Charles Janet in "Foundations in Chemistry" is quite odd. The paper itself states "Published online: 10 January 2009", but on the journal's web site it is still listed under "Online First" and it does not appear in any of the three issues of volume 11 in 2009. There are 8 papers so listed, ranging from one by the editor of the journal dated January 2010, back to this article dated January, 2009. The article by the editor clearly cites the Stewart article as Volume 12, 2010. We have here a large delay from acceptance and publication in advance on the web, to actual publication in the journal. I have tried to make that clear in the reference in this article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  05:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * it was published in January of 2009 on line and on paper. I paid about US$30.00 to buy a copy in Spring of 2009. I stiil have it.Drova (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * here is the articleDrova (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you paid money to get a paper copy of the online version. I can not access the version from your link as I have no login for Springer, but I can access the journal through my university. Does your copy give a volume number, an issue number and a page numbers? If not, it is not a reprint of a paper properly published in the journal, but only an online preprint. The copy I have gives none of these and just says "Published online: 10 January 2009", one day before the date on your link. The paper is not in any of the three issues of Volume 11 published in 2009. As I indicate above it will be published properly in the journal in volume 12 in 2010. The cite I mention is from a paper by the editor, Eric Scerri, published online in January 2010. Would he get it wrong? But never mind. There is these days confusion between when first available on the web and when actually published in the journal itself. I will add the correct citation when the paper is published. That journal is one I keep an eye on. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I bought it on line. My copy does not say "preprint". It says "Published on Line: 10 January 2009". It has DOI 10.1007/s10698-008-9062-5, It also has ISSN 1386-4238 (print) and ISSN 1572-8463 (online). When I was buying it they offered me to buy suscription and a copy of magazine, but I declined. I see neither volume number, nor issue number on my PDF copy. You can go to this siteyou can get free login for Springer and buy it. That how I did it.Drova (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the article via my university access. It says all that, but it still is only published online. See this link. It is one of the 8 under "Online First", that is available online but waiting to actually appear in the journal. It will be published in Volume 12, possibly issue 1, and then we will have to add that detail. Full publication occurs only when a volume number and page numbers are allocated. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job, thanks for clarification.Drova (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This article was accepted for publication a year and a half ago and posted "online first" in January 2009. The editor of Foundations of Chemistry assures me it will appear in the next print issue. I have no idea why the delay. An article by Mike Laing has been similarly delayed. One correction on Janet's helix: it is wound on nested cylinders; they are not concentric but all touch along one side. All his designs, including the flat spiral and the left-step table, derive from the helix, which shows the elements all equally spaced as a continuous sequence without gaps or cuts. Van Spronsen shows the image in his book (see index; I don't have my copy to hand). Pjstewart 12 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjstewart (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is in print now: "Foundations of Chemistry", Vol.12, No.1, April issue of 2010. Drova (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Another very important form of the table missing
In the Soviet Union the "short" form of the periodic table were used, where the A and B blocks were written together, so that Mn and Br share the same "place"..... since that has actually found widespread usage, and possibly still does in some parts of the world, I'm sure it deserves a place here. An example of that periodic table can be found on this site: http://flerovlab.jinr.ru/flnr/dimg/Periodic_Table.jpg 195.50.199.86 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty good pattern wise. But they have the wrong idea in having 71Lu and 103Lr in the 14 element lanthanide and actinide series, since these elements should be in group 3.WFPM (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We do have the one sentence "Mendeleev's short form table, that shows secondary chemical kinships, is still used by many." with a link to a Russian website which shows the table with element names in both Russian and English. This is a start which can be expanded to give more information.


 * It seems ironic however to consider this short form as Alternative when it is essentially Mendeleev's original table, with new elements discovered after his time placed following Mendeleev's organization. The article's first sentence claims that "Alternative periodic tables are tabulations of chemical elements differing significantly in their organization from Mendeleev's periodic table." A more realistic statement might be "... from the standard contemporary periodic table", or perhaps "... from Seaborg's periodic table since Glenn Seaborg made the last generally accepted major change in organization by placing the actinides under the lanthanides. Dirac66 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I will change it.Drova (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Janet periodic table
The Janet periodic table has a very simple and logical format of presentation of the organizational sequence of occurrence of the elements in a numerical sequence order. It has 8 horizontal rows and 32 columns, with the following rationale being related to the location of the elements within that format: 1: The last two columns are originally created by the creation of two alpha particles, with the first particle having a stable existence as the nuclear structure of EE2He4, and the second being an unstable nuclear structure of the element EE4Be8. And in the 3rd to the 8th series of the Janet periodic table, the last 6 columns are a continued representative of the successive halogen/rare earth series, which ends with elements numbers 119 and 120. And it is therefor possible to reason that the elements existing prior to the last 2 elements in each row are those physically required within the atomic structure to permit the structure to be enlarged sufficiently such that the end 2 elements in each row can achieve a stable condition of stability within the atomic structure of the atom. With regard to this factor of accumulation, it is to be noted that in rows 3 and 4, 6 intermediate elements are required, with the first 2 having different physical and chemical properties from the remaining 4, so we can say that the intermediate in rows 3 and 4 consist is a series of 2 elements plus 4 elements. Then we can note that in rows 5 and 6, 18 intermediate elements are required. However this number consists in a series of 10 metal elements plus the previous noted 2 + 4 elements. However these 10 elements can be subdivided into 3 subgroups (2 + 4 + 4) of element similar to the previous subdivision, and the 18 required intermediate element requirement for rows 5 and 6 becomes (2 + 4) + (2 + 4 + 4) = 18. And finally the 7th and 8th rows of intermediate elements are noted to require 30 total elements before the last 2, and consist in the addition of 14 + 10 + 6 elements. And the last 14 elements can also be noted to be able to be subdivided into subgroups of (2 + 4 + 4 + 4) elements, and so the 7th and 8th rows can be considered to be a grouping of (2 + 4 + 4 + 4) + (2 + 4 + 4) + (2 + 4) + 2 = 32 elements. And if the structure of the atom were a 4 sided structure, such as that shown in Talk:Nuclear model it would be understandable how such a 4 unit increase in intermediate element accumulation numbers would be required for the every other expansion in size of the structure of the atom.WFPM (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Rich" Table
Quote: "Ronald L. Rich has proposed a periodic table where elements appear more than once when appropriate."

I remember a periodic table chart in one of my college classrooms (in the 1970s) that had Hydrogen duplicated, appearing at the top of Group 1 and also of Group 17. Appropriate, in that it's a unique case wherein the outer electron shell is almost empty and almost full at the same time. WHPratt (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Pyramidal periodic table
Fe seems to be listed as atomic number 28 instead of 26. 76.25.105.79 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

TETRAHEDRAL DEPICTIONS
One new(ish) way to depict the periodic system is through the use of tetrahedral layouts. First proposed in 1979. It was found that one could stack the blocks s,p,d,f from the Janet Left-Step table, ending in element 120, along their centers in a third dimension to create a distorted tetrahedron. Later is was realized that by halving the width (so 2 element per cell) gave an equilateral tetrahedral layout. This was the basis of work by me and also independently rediscovered by Tsimmerman with his Adomah model. The latter improves the layout by utilizing close-packed spheres.

The use of spheres, later one per element, allowed the development of models that utilized the entire tetrahedral stack rather than half. Pierre Demers, a chemist/physicist from Quebec, had himself come up with 2 different such configurations in the late 1990's, one in which the s-block ran across a tetrahedral edge, with p,d,f fitting further down in sequence, and another in which the s-block ran down a triangular face of the tetrahedron from one vertex to an edge center.

Other configurations include one where the s-block runs from one edge center, through the body of the tetrahedron, to an opposite, perpendicular edge center. In this model each pair of periods marks out a skew rhombus of spheres containing a square number of same. These stack to give ever larger tetrahedra. There are very large numbers of other alternative configurations within the tetrahedral space, many of which are not symmetrical, though many are, and which break up the sequence of elements (Mendeleev's Line) in various ways. In addition, there are also a handful of formats where the sequence is unbroken and symmetricality is maintained.

The tetrahedral mapping of the periodic system is motivated by the linkage of the periodic system to Pascal's Triangle, with relation to the Janet Left-Step table. In that, each redesignated period ends with an alkaline earth, and exactly half (atomic numbers 4,20,56,120) match the tetrahedral diagonal numbers from the Pascal Triangle. Counting leftwards within a Janet period using Pascal triangular numbers maps to positions where quantum number ml=0. Other links to Pascal include the perfect mapping, through 89, of Fibonacci numbers to atomic numbers at positions in the periodic system that are leftmost in orbital half-rows in the table's block structure, and the slightly less perfect similar mapping of related Lucas number as atomic numbers to rightmost positions within orbital half-rows. 67.81.236.32 (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Benfey table update.
The Theodore Benfey table is not updated with Fl and Lv.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.90.118 (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Many complexities and errors in Periodic system of elements are already corrected
Look on Russian sites:

Classification of chemical elements with vertical period mapping Makeyev A.K. Great natural-science laws which operate the general tendency of construction of the electronic cloud of atoms in process of growth of the charge of the nucleus of atom.

Makeyev A.K. The Synergia of Spherovectors Fractals of the Universe

Makeyev A.K. Topological radiation

[http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/rus/catalog/pages/12146.html Makeyev A.K. Normal and pathological anatomy and physiology of the human person and society. Fundamental knowledge about the qualities of the human person, human society and the foundations of management of society, production and actions of people, based on the universal algorithm of the holographic structure and function of all levels and forms of matter.]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Makeyev (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

--83.237.230.80 18:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is supposed to tell us something, I have not the slightest idea what. Femto 20:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a good new table, with full explanatory text, at http://www.springerlink.com/content/q7j4670426845322/fulltext.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.179.173 (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki is not a repository of url's. And certainly not when the url is a non-English language website. So why don't you write a few lines on the topic discussed in the website that you mention V8rik 00:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

'''*The above listed Russian Sites have nothing new. It is simply Left Step PT, Version I, formulated by Charles Janet in 1928, only on its side. '''Drova (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

STOP DELETING WITHOUT DISCUSSING
The "fuller chart" is nicer than most on Wiki and was hard to make. Stop remving it from the gallery. I was not notified nor is any reason posted for deletion. At least post in disucssion. What reason ? Rediculous. Go delete your own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle2 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an alternative table - just a tweak of the standard one. Materialscientist (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

SO WHAT
Most alternative tables are not "better". This is better that what is posted in it's own way just as much. Especially if someone is looking to print or pan it on an iPhone.

Go delete you work not mine. I don't think you have anything new over what is in print - just rearrangements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternative tables are not about "better", but about different designs of the table. Yours is not, sorry. Materialscientist (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Materialscientist. Things like "levels of detail", color-coding, font/size/spacing are not periodic tables "differing significantly in their organization from the traditional depiction of the Periodic System.", the explicit scope and meaning for this article. DMacks (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuller Data with fill order
A nice chart displaying fill order and other data, works nice on iphone too:



The same but with a newer La/Ac series layout that is easier too understand and follow with the eye:



errata: chart implies data is in Mathematica's (CRC 79th 1989) chem.m except Oxidation State (CRC 52nd 1972).

source and Postscript (pritable) version at: Periodic Table Of Elements 4 Mathematica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle2 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

an alternative periodic table to show shells more clearly
I created this table based on various sources. it is designed so that people can look at it and see the organisation of the electron shells more easily. I was unsure where it belongs but am pretty certain it would be useful to many people. would it fit on this page? Drag-5 (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure looks interesting but way too wide to fit on a single page. The problem is that this article is about alternative periodic tables published and not resulting those from original research. On the other hand you could use the image as an image of the periodic table. But what do the graphs inside each cell mean, a distribution of what ? V8rik (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The graphs are pictographic representations of each shell in the atoms. teh plus shape is meant to represent the nucleus of the atom and the dots each represent an electron. Drag-5 (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By way of a vote of confidence, I reached this Periodic Table from a Google Image search and was very happy with it: just what I needed. (Thanks.) 88.96.159.86 (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

an alternate periodic table for physical property considerations
The standard periodic was developed based mostly on chemical considerations. It has seven rows and thirty two columns in the wide version. The numbers of columns in each row are sequentially Row/Column 1/2 2/8 3/8 4/18 5/18 6/32 7/32 for a total of 118 elements. The rows contain the indicated number of elements for no particular reason except that is noted that the elements in the columns have a chemical relationship with each other and that chenical affinity or "valence" property of the element is related to it's position in the row. However when it became necessary to discuss a periodic table related to proposed electron orbit and other considerations, it became evident that the standard 7 row 32 column table was not adequately descriptive of either the physical or the chemical period properties of the elements. To summarize, a better table could be prepared, with such table having 8 rows and still 32 columns in the configuration Row/Column 1/2 2/2 3/8 4/8 5/18 6/18 7/32 8/32 with a total of 120. This is a much more understandable table with each row beginning with the start of a sequential set of physical and chemical series. WFPM WFPM (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC) You can see a picture of such a table in Talk:nuclear model WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)WFPMWFPM (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

update
mathematica notebook improved slightly. a font problem fixed (missing font "u" on some % solar abundances). Navstar55 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed
This says:

The s-block is shifted upwards one row, now predicted elements 119 and 120 appear in row 7.

Actually, "row 7" is the eighth row of this table, not the seventh. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

119, 120
About this reverse by (Bold-Reverse-Discuss: D by now, although I might expect Georgia guy to have started a talk). Anyway.

I think the edit is not OK. I admit, the text should say "8th row" not "7th row". Let's change that. But for the rest: the bullet is intentionally not about the "s-block", it is about elements 119 and 120. On top of this, the verbose, long description tries to do two topics (not one), which is not clarifying for the reader. I propose reversal, and of course change "7" into "8". -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

"Janet left-step periodic table"
I think this table is very natural; it has the pros of having the s-block on the far right so that the f-block can be put to the left of the d-block invariably; or more generally, consecutive elements will always be immediately touching each other or be in separate rows. Any cons of this periodic table variant?? Please do not answer with "It's not the most common form." Georgia guy (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not just look better and nicer. It is based on a different structuring setup. So it differs from the base up. The more common PT is based on oxidation valences (that's its orogine), Janet's on shell filling pattern. As for replacement, I could guess that physicists have a Janet's on their wall, while chemicists stick to Mendeleevs setup (with Roman numbers). -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

There is some hint that the relative placement of the s-block elements on the right side of PT depictions in 2D is more natural, and that placement on the left edge is more derivative. The evidence comes from the nuclear shell system. Under a simple harmonic oscillator model we get a split left-step organization, split because of parity sorting. Parity associates with quantum number l, so that even l (0=s, 2=d, 3=g, 4=i, etc.) and odd l (1=p, 3=f, 5=h, 6=j, etc.) hang together to form sequences of orbitals which create analogues of periods:

1s, 1p, 1d2s, 1f2p, 1g2d3s, 1h2f3p, 1i2g3d4s, 1j2h3f4p and so forth.

In more realistic models we have to include corrective terms in the nuclear Hamiltonian to account for both the spin-orbit effect and deformed potential well. In spin-orbit coupling each orbital ends up split into two parts (differing in size by two nucleons): s (2,0); p (4,2); d(6,4), f(8,6), g(10,8), h(12,10), i(14,12), j(16,14). The larger part aligns its spins with the orbit and drops in energy, while the smaller part has spin anti-parallel to the orbit and rises in energy.

The largest partial orbital may drop in energy sufficiently to join the previous period analogue, so that 1d9/2 (10 nucleons) drops into the period analogue marked by 1f2p, etc.

Interestingly, the sizes of the harmonic-oscillator period analogues are all double triangular numbers s=2, p=6, ds=12, fp=20, gds=30, hfp=42, igds=56, and jhfp=72. The sizes of the highest spin orbital partials which join them is exactly that needed to bump the size to the very next double triangular number, which looks suspiciously like some kind of cosmic conspiracy: fp(20)+g(10)=30; gds(30)+12=42, hfp(42)+i(14)=56, igds(56)+j(16)=72. Even more interestingly, the numerical (as opposed to energetic) drop into the structure of the previous period analogue turns out to be based on Pascal Triangle math as well: g drops 2, h drops 6, i drops 12, and j drops 20 moves. This works because of the way the period analogues are themselves structured.

In electronic shells, instead of seeing the highest-spin orbital partial dropping energy-wise into the previous period analogue, we see the RISING energy-wise of the LOWEST-SPIN (real) orbital partial into the NEXT HIGHER period (if we use Janet Left-Step motivation). Thus we have a mirror-image effect to that of the nucleus. One unexplained issue is that the true lowest-spin orbital partial in an s-orbital has spin -1/2 and population of zero (for book-keeping purposes, ostensibly).

Anyway, if this view is correct, then the Janet rendering is the underlyingly more basic one, and that with s-orbitals from the previous period included in with the next is more derivative, just as in the nucleus the harmonic oscillator-only model gives a left-step structure, and spin-orbit coupling gives something more akin to the classical electronic depiction.69.114.46.208 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The most important alternative periodic table is missing!
The most important Alternative Periodic Table is Left Step Periodic Table (LSPT) introduced by Charles Janet in 1928. It is not listed among major alternatives! This periodic table is widely used by physicists and is also sometimes called "spectroscopic periodic table". Its origin can be traced all the way back to the first version of the Periodic Table published by Julius Lothar Meyer in 1864. That is 5 years before Mendeleev!

This periodic table, also known as Janet Periodic Table, is organized in accordance with orbital filling. It is way more recognized than any other example given in the article.

Prof. Henry Bent devoted his book "New Ideas in Chemistry from Fresh Energy for the Periodic Law" strictly to Janet's Left Step Periodic Table. Also, see article in January 2009 eddition of Foundations of Chemistry: "Charles Janet: unrecognized genius of the periodic system." by Dr. Philip Stewart of Oxford. ISSN 1386-4238 (Print) ISSN 1572-8463 (Online). There is also improved version of Left Step PT that appeared in 2006 that is mentioned in the above article. That version of LSPT combines Aufbau mnemonic diagram with the periodic table and allows direct derivation of electron configurations.

The "Most Important Alternative" article has to be corrected to include LSPT. Drova (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nature of chemical elements. http://nauka-sn.ru/filestore/3(7)2018/FilipenkaH.R.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.45.218.179 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

removal
Hi,

The sentence “In 2007, Jozsef Garai proposed a Mathematical formula describing the periodicity of the elements in the periodic system based on double tetrahedron face-centered cubic lattice nuclear model. [4]” has been removed stating that the “Alternative periodic tables do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed.”

The sentence was posted by someone else and I just made minor correction and added links to my web-site. The original posting gave the link to my article on the publisher’s web-site. If you do not have a subscription then you can read only the abstract. I have the right to post the article on my web-site but I have to state that the copyright belongs to the publisher (Wiley). I can not put direct link to the article without this statement. That is the reason why I put link to my web-page. I can restore the original posting done by someone else but then there is no access to the original article. J. Garai (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for the misunderstanding. I skimmed through your article, and it seemed to belong more in Magic number (physics) than this article, so I've moved it there. I've also added the citation links so that the full text of the article can be retrieved. The original arxiv.org link doesn't seem to have any access restrictions, so I've used that instead. Please check that article and let me know if I'm wrong.&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, regarding the guidelines for external links, it is generally wisest to post links to one's own website or own publications on the talk page of the article, and let someone else add it in, rather than adding it in oneself, since that can be seen as a conflict of interest. Wikipedia takes conflict of interest quite seriously, especially because its open nature often attracts promotional links/material that detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia.&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is about alternative periodic tables, not about mathematical regularities of the periodic system, etc. Therefore, in general, we should limit the article to Alternative Periodic Table formulations and should refrain from adding such things as formulae, number theories and references that deal with such mathematical regularities. There are other wiki articles that deal with such issues.Drova (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

new atomic numbers for any elements https://fhenadzi.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.45.218.179 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Periodic System by origin of elements?
Do you think this should also be part of the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nucleosynthesis_periodic_table.svg
 * Hi anon. This is not an "alternative PT" realy, not a structural (conceptual) change. Not even a just-a-graphic-alternative. It is a depiction of an element property by way of a PT. At enwiki, there are more of these. For example:
 * Periodic table (discovery periods),
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Elements coloring scheme,
 * Template:Periodic table (crystal structure).
 * But these tooare not suitable for this article. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)