periodic table by abundance?

[joeweller]

 

hello,

so I want to know if this version still accurate since it was made in 1970? and can you tell me why.

thank you

[Strange]

Looks about right (without measuring everyone and checking).

 

Note that this is abundance on on Earth. (Not in the solar system, the galaxy or the universe as a whole.)

 

 

and can you tell me why.

 

Why what?

[imatfaal]

I think in its own terms it is unlikely to be wrong. But I would prefer it if it were more specific - it clearly is not abundance on astronomical scales where H is about 70% by mass and 90% by atom count, nor the earth itself which is about 30%iron and 30% oxygen by mass.

[John Cuthber]

It's an interesting approximation, but, for example there is nothing like as much Pa as U or Th.

Po and At are also vastly over-represented.

 

What I find interesting is that they did this in 1970.

The idea of using distorted maps has come into vogue recently because it's easy to get a computer to do it for you.

Things like this

http://www.worldmapper.org/animations/internet_users_animation.html

it must have been very hard work doing it by hand all those years ago.

[Enthalpy]

It can't be Earth's composition neither. But maybe Eart's crust, or the top of the crust, plus the atmosphere, the Ocean and all the carbonates in the soil. What does the text say?

[imatfaal]

http://www.eoht.info/page/William+Sheehan

 

"each square based on the element's relative abundance on the Earth's surface"

 

https://magazine.scu.edu/summer2008/memoriam.cfm