Vts

Thanks for support, Hermanntrude. I should have also included link to the Janet's LSPT. I belong to a group of people who believe that the Periodic Table should be based on Electron Configurations. That is why I started this thread. I'm completing it by asking to forgive my obsession.

Well, La for example does not even have f-electron. How can we put it in f-block? I think, I found good answer to that question that has two parts: First, we make sure that continuity of atomic numbers Z is preserved, that is (56)Ba precedes (57)La that is followed by (58)Ce, etc; Second, we break the sequence of the elements in accordance with value of (n+l) of newly added electron: for Ba n+l=6, for La n+l=7, so is for Ce n+l=7. The break should be between Ba and La, where "n+l" changes to a higher value. Not between La and Ce, as was shown in older periodic tables. Therefore, 7th period naturally starts with La, despite the absence of f-electron. One might ask why was "n+l" rule chosen for braking the sequence of the elements in periods? Well, because it was empirically determined that electrons generally follow "n+l" order when they take their places around the nucleus (and also vacate their places during ionization). So, it is quite logical to suggest that new period should start with the element that has newly added electron reaching new high "n+l" value. That what makes Janet's LSPT and its recent offspring ADOMAH PT objectively unique.

Well, it is true only to a certain extent. As reported recently in Science News, group of scientists in Switzerland have determined that element 114 acts more like a noble gas, not as Pb. There are other mysterious relationships, such as Knight move, for example. Therefore, if we look simply at the properties, we could break up the sequence in many different ways. I think that the only correct way is to sort elements by spdf blocks. And, since it is the most logical way, the blocks should be placed in correct order, that is spdf, in accordance with the quantum number "l=0,1,2,3...", no sfdp (l=0,3,2,1) order, as in traditional table.

Would it be correct to say then that traditional PT is constructed on the basis of physical properties of elements? Dmitri Mendeleev has warned that properties of the elements should not be a basis for the Periodic Table since they may vary a great deal under the influence of the environmental conditions, such as temperature and pressure. Helium supposedly acts as a metal in the cores of large planets, such as jupiter, etc. Therefore, our Periodic table would take a different form, if we would live on a different planet.

Someone asked me recently: What is the basic principle behind the layout of the traditional Periodic Table? I can not answer this question in one short sentence. Can you?

You can find all sorts of periodic table formulations HERE. It is quite interesting. Check it out!

I agree with you, guys. I am just stating the fact that polygon with 90 sides is the closest to 22:7 perimeter to diameter ratio than any other polygon. I have no idea if it means anything in physical reality. Perhaps it does. I just recently found direct connection of regular tetrahedron and the tetrahedral close sphere packing to the quantum numbers n, l and ml. Sometimes it pays off to look closely at coincidences.You can check it out at my web site.

If space is not continuous, then, physically, there is no such thing as a circle. Circle is just an approximation of a polygon. It could be said that equilateral triangle, square, pentagon..., are just approximations of a circle. Therefore, what we know as "pi" is a ratio of perimeter of a polygon with infinite number of sides to the distance between the opposite sides (in case of even number of sides), or diameter of hypothetical circle that is inscribed in such polygon. But from the physics we know that there is a limit. Somewhere around the Plank's constant. Therefore, the minimum size of a polygon's side is defined. Now, the question is how many sides such polygon has? Is it it is infinity? In quantum realm threre are such numbers as 1, 2, 3, 4..., that we call integers. If we take a polygon that would be chacterized by integers only in all directions? Perhaps, 90, 22 and 7 are those integers. Just a thought.

Actually, if I remember it correctly, 22/7 ratio is the ratio of perimeter of the polygon with 90 straight sides to the maximum distance between the sides. That is, if polygon with 90 sides is circumscribed around a circle with diameter equal to d=7, its perimeter would be equal to 22.00008478.

That is nice. Thanks. Unfortunately, not all symbols are there. The symbols for ceiling and floor functions that I need are not included on that web page. I used floor(n/2) for now, but would like to change to the symbol one day. Is there HTML code for floor and ceiling functionn symbols?

Thank you very much ! Where can I find all Math symbols, along with the examples? Is there an Internet site that has them?

Question 1: If, for example, I have a sequence n=1,2,3, 5.... and I have to divide this sequence by 2, that is n/2=0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5...., but in my next formula I have to use only whole parts of the results: n/2(whole)= 0, 1, 1, 2, 2,... Is there a mathematical symbol for such expression ? I tried few web sites, including the Wikipedia, but was not able to find one. Question 2: Is there mathematical symbol for rounded numbers? Please, help !

Well, it does those too. I am not against other formulations. Each one shows some things better than other. My view is that the superiority is in reflecting the nature of the elements the best way possible and the electron configurations should take precedence over all other things, which are just derivatives.

:-)To my critics: Please go to ADOMAH userguide. It is good illustration of total superiority of ADOMAH PT over any other formulation. Can IUPAC periodic table be used to derive electron configurations directly (without mnemonic diagram, memorizing stuff, etc)? Can any other periodic table be used for direct determination of the electron configurations in such fashion? Let me know if you find one!