He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

[Rene]

Here are a few related items.

He over Be

I’ve been working on chapter 6 of the Tao of the Periodic Table. The topic is whether there is a rubric that can address the question of whether or not there is an ideal periodic table. By "rubric" I mean a guiding set of principles or rules designed to make judgments or decisions.

It occurred to me that with regard to H over Li, no one calls H an alkali metal.

In the same way, for He over Be, no one calls He an alkaline earth metal.

Yet, the #1 objection to He over Be is that He is not an alkaline earth metal. Eh?

In one sense, the left step form is ideal given its regularity.

However, the pragmatism and utilitarianism of chemistry enters the picture, so the s-block gets moved to the left and He is moved over Ne.

H over Li

If H is over Li, rather than elsewhere, then each block starts with the appearance of the applicable differenting electron: s block = H; p-block = B; d-block = Sc; f-block = Ce. I have not previously seen mention of this pleasing pattern in connection with the position of H.

Wignerium (Wg)

I’ve previously mentioned the electron as element -1 and the neutron as element 0.

An item in my news feed attracted my interest:

First direct image of a Wigner crystal 

A Wigner crystal — a structure made entirely of electrons — has been imaged directly for the first time. Until now, there had only been indirect evidence of the crystal, which forms at low temperatures. “We never thought that we would succeed,” says physicist and study co-author Ali Yazdani. “It was a bit of an accident.” Using high-resolution scanning tunnelling microscopy, the team saw the electrons inside two thin graphene sheets arrange themselves into a triangular lattice, just like physicist Eugene Wigner predicted in 1934.

New Scientist | 4 min read

Reference: Nature paper

According to the Wikipedia article on Wigner crystal, "A Wigner crystal is the solid (crystalline) phase of electrons first predicted by Eugene Wigner in 1934... To minimize the potential energy, the electrons form a bcc (body-centered cubic) lattice in 3D, a triangular lattice in 2D and an evenly spaced lattice in 1D."

I have written previously about the role of the neutron in chemistry, and the existence of the chemistry of the electron.

It’s amusing to think that, just as the noble gases were first assigned to group 0, the electron and neutron could be assigned to period 0:

  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 

0 Wg                                                 Nn

1 H                                                  He

2 Li Be                               B  C  N  O  F  Ne

3 Na Mg                               Al Si P  S  Cl Ar

4 K  Ca Sc Ti V  Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr

Voila, all period lengths repeat once!

René

[John Marks]

Dear René,

Wigner´s electron element and von Antropoff´s neutronium cannot exist in a free state, part of the definition of an element.

H is not an alkali metal nor is He an alkaline earth metal. 

The periodic table is about periodicity. It shows that with H to O and F to S.

These are the initial rubric.

And sufficient evidence for me. 

John

---

From: pt...@googlegroups.com <pt...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 13 April 2024 04:54
To: Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Periodic table mailing list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PT-L+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/925EF0F4-BB8E-4E66-B386-9CF70C79D3E1%40webone.com.au.

[Rene]

On 13 Apr 2024, at 20:11, John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear René,

Wigner´s electron element and von Antropoff´s neutronium cannot exist in a free state, part of the definition of an element.

H is not an alkali metal nor is He an alkaline earth metal. 

The periodic table is about periodicity. It shows that with H to O and F to S.

These are the initial rubric.

And sufficient evidence for me. 

John

Thanks John

Electron traps can confine single electrons in a vacuum using electromagnetic fields. The Penning trap and the Paul trap are examples of such devices, which use a combination of electric and magnetic fields to hold a charged particle in place. As for free neutrons, these can exist; they have a half life of about 15 minutes, usually decaying into a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino. There is the Chart of Nuclides, which includes the neutron as element zero.

As posted earlier, "electrons have their own chemistry as solvated electrons in solution, representing the smallest possible anions. Solid salts containing isolated electrons are known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electride"

The periodic table is primarily a classification based on an approximate recurrence of physical and chemical properties. The periodic law does not intrinsically require that its periodicity occurs in paired sets. Hence the conventional periodic table has period lengths of 2-8-8-18-18 etc. The equivalent of Marks' Version of Mendeleyev's 1869 Formulation would be:

        -1 0  1  2  3  4  5 6

      0 Wg Nn

      1  H He Li Be B  C  N O

      2  F Ne Na Mg Al Si P S

There is a beautiful congruence of the electron in Group -1; and an equally congruent presence of the neutron in Group 0.

It does seem odd that the electron plays such a significant role in chemistry of the elements yet is nowhere to be seen in chemistry’s organising framework. 

René

[johnmarks9]

Well René, electrons have their own chemistry as I pointed out in "Mendeleyev revisited" (2021).

And, in the same paper, I noted the chemistry of protons resulting in the anomalous behaviour of H⁺.

Neutrons are a particle of subatomic physics like mesons, etc., with a limited half-life.
The otherwise "normal" behaviour of H and H⁻ explains the chemistry of hydrogen as the first member of Group -1 (H, F, Cl, Br, J, At).

H⁺ is anomalous because it´s the chemistry of a proton.

"The periodic table is primarily a classification based on an approximate recurrence of physical and chemical properties"

Since when was periodicity "approximate"?   Whence come Döbereiner´s triads then? 

Or the atomic numbers of groups meticulously following the gaps predicted by the periods, viz. 8, 18 and 32?

Regards, John

[Rene]

On 14 Apr 2024, at 01:10, johnmarks9 <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well René, electrons have their own chemistry as I pointed out in "Mendeleyev revisited" (2021).

And, in the same paper, I noted the chemistry of protons resulting in the anomalous behaviour of H⁺.

Neutrons are a particle of subatomic physics like mesons, etc., with a limited half-life.
The otherwise "normal" behaviour of H and H⁻ explains the chemistry of hydrogen as the first member of Group -1 (H, F, Cl, Br, J, At).

H⁺ is anomalous because it´s the chemistry of a proton.

"The periodic table is primarily a classification based on an approximate recurrence of physical and chemical properties"

Since when was periodicity "approximate"?   Whence come Döbereiner´s triads then? 

Or the atomic numbers of groups meticulously following the gaps predicted by the periods, viz. 8, 18 and 32?

Regards, John

John, thanks for mentioning "Mendeleyev revisited".

On the approximate nature of the periodic law, Eric (2000) wrote:

"However, the periodic law of the chemical elements, for example, differs from typical laws in physics in that the recurrence of elements after certain intervals is only approximate. In addition, the repeat period varies as one progresses through the periodic system. These features do not render the periodic law any less law-like, but they do suggest that the nature of laws may differ from one area of science to another."

Jensen (1986) said the same thing:

"What all of this means is simply that the periodic table is a true natural classification based on the simultaneous consideration of as many property-atomic number maps as possible. Since none of these maps exhibits perfect periodicity, the result is the best averaged representation and one which is consequently imperfect with regard to any single property considered in isolation."

René

[John Marks]

Dear René,

Far be it from me to question such authorities as Scerri and Jensen, but " . . . the recurrence of [similar] elements after certain intervals is only approximate" (Scerri, 2000) is simply not true. The "certain intervals" do vary from 8 to 18 to 32, but they are exact.

And since "no particular property map exhibits perfect periodicity" (Jensen, 1986), it does not follow that a suitable, weighted collection of such properties cannot exhibit perfect periodicity, viz. the best averaged representation - aka chemistry!

The wonder is that, despite Jensen´s remark, the Mendeleyev PT (updated by Ramsay & Sommerfeld) does show perfect periodicity.

Regards,

John 

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 14 April 2024 03:41
To: johnmarks9 <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

[Larry T.]

John,

Mendeleev PT show only partial periodicity, that is far from perfect. Without recurrence of the first period, is it even periodic? Chemistry would be dead if the periodicity was "perfect". Because it is not perfect, such elements as Si, Ge, Sn, Pb and Fl exist. Otherwise it would be only one element-carbon.

VT

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Periodic table mailing list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PT-L+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/AS8P194MB16726FFD81D1FDF591DDCFB4930A2%40AS8P194MB1672.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[johnmarks9]

Larry, The periodicity is perfect in the correlation of Z with chemical properties "generally" (in Jensen´s sense, last post).

If you mean by ´partial´ that there´s more than one period length, then OK, there´s three. But they´re perfect.

Your point about chemistry being ´dead´ is the opposite of the case: it´s the periodicity that gives chemistry its life. It´s the basis upon which chemistry stands, which is the correlation of property with Z - and that is precisely Jensen´s criterion. There´s an art to finding this criterion: it cannot be easily quantified. Hence the plethora of PTs!

Yet chemistry is built upon such an empirical basis: it´s not merely subjective nor is it just an amorphous mass of knowledge (although it may seem so!).

And that basis is the Periodic Table (of Mendeleyev updated by Ramsay & Sommerfeld).

Regards,

John

[John Marks]

---

From: John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Sent: 14 April 2024 19:23
To: Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

 

Yes, agreed Larry.

The Art of chemistry  is precisely what you say, with Jensenian  "perfection" as the criterion. 

Regards,

john

---

From: Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com>
Sent: 14 April 2024 17:22
To: John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>; Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>

[Julio gutierrez samanez]

Dear colleagues:

Since there are around twenty elements with anomalous electronic configurations, there cannot be perfect chemistry.

I think it is a very used and worn-out paradigm, the fact of looking for the “perfect periodicity” based only on the columns or “vertical rows” of the periodic table, knowing that these columns begin with H/Li; He/Ne or the He/Be, and they end lower, making branches or roots; since the periods grow due to the appearance of transitions or new quantum functions (secondary or azimuthal quantum numbers). Furthermore - as Scerri and Schwarz have made us notice many times - in each of the transition elements with d orbitals, for example, the (s) orbitals appear as anomaly. (ie: 3d, 4s; 4d, 5s). Likewise, neither Lanthanum nor Actinium have orbitals (4f1, 5 f1) despite belonging to the f block, hence their properties tend to resemble those of Scandium and Yttrium.

On the other hand, if we observe horizontally, making a linear sequence (Z) with the elements placed in grids and marked with equal colors for elements with similar characteristics, -as Henry Bend had done and which was disseminated by René-, we find a series of periodic shapes described by spirals surrounding a cone. These spirals perfectly describe the periodicity of the chemical properties that evolve with the growth of the even, double or duplicated spirals, which grow with each binode or pair of periods due to the appearance of new transitions or new secondary quantum numbers, whose frequency, It is the true mathematical and physical foundation of the existence of periodicity and therefore of the Periodic Law.

Furthermore, by graphing (Z) as a function of the main quantum numbers: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5...) we have found that a parabolic curve of the second degree is formed, perfectly formed by the superposition of the pairs of periods of sizes: (4, 16, 36, 64, 100...) that, when added, give the series: 4, 20, 56, 120, 220... that describes that universal parabola. Therefore, in this exact geometry (of nuclei, and not electrons), perfect periodicity can be found using spirals surrounding a cone. I see that secondary periodicities also appear.

This is a new paradigmatic way, different from seeing and studying the Periodic Law, given the stagnation in the “vertical” form that has been going on for more than a century and a half, without finding a way out.

In a previous communication, from two days ago, I sent a home video about the model I am working on. First, I am doing it in pencil and with paper cuts, to later transfer it to a virtual model. If for some reason it has not arrived, let me know so I can resend it to you. I await your comments.

Greetings to all and keep your health good, which is the most important thing.

Julio

(Sorry for my Google translation)

I made this graph, in a hurry, with the computer mouse, just to give an idea.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/AS8P194MB167206A2F63EC982C1CA9C7D930A2%40AS8P194MB1672.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Rene]

On 14 Apr 2024, at 19:16, John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear René,

Far be it from me to question such authorities as Scerri and Jensen, but " . . . the recurrence of [similar] elements after certain intervals is only approximate" (Scerri, 2000) is simply not true. The "certain intervals" do vary from 8 to 18 to 32, but they are exact.

And since "no particular property map exhibits perfect periodicity" (Jensen, 1986), it does not follow that a suitable, weighted collection of such properties cannot exhibit perfect periodicity, viz. the best averaged representation - aka chemistry!

The wonder is that, despite Jensen´s remark, the Mendeleyev PT (updated by Ramsay & Sommerfeld)does show perfect periodicity.

Regards,

John 

Thanks John

Valery is right. Si, for example, is only approximately like C; Ge is only approximately like Si, etc. 

Furthermore, there is no objective basis to "weight" or bias properties. As Jensen wrote: 

"What all of this means is simply that the periodic table is a true natural classification based on the simultaneous consideration of as many property-atomic number maps as possible."

Yes, if the elements are lined up in order of Z, then the first true recurrence for H is in F and for He is in Ne. The interval is 8 for H and 8 for Ne. After a while the interval increases to 18 and then 32.

The "perfect" periodicity of the spectacular Mendeleyev PT (updated by Ramsay & Sommerfeld) abbr. MPTU, relies on a misconceived premise that the primary relationship from Al is to Ga. In fact, the actual primary relationship is instead between Al and Sc, as the old chemists knew, and showed it. Greenwood & Earnshaw (2002, pp. 222–223) discuss the irregularities going down B-Al-Ga-In-Tl and included plots showing the trends for B-Al-Sc-Y-La are smoother.

The MPTU also omits the parallel primary relationships between Cd and Hg, and between Y and La.

The fact of the Al:Sc primary relationship brings to mind the following quote:

“The idea that the universe is a little bit off-balance, that it’s slightly askew, is actually what drives it, what allows it to evolve, what allows it to change, and what makes it interesting...”

— Brean J, Science's ‘beauty problem’: Scientists increasingly confusing elegance and symmetry for truth, National Post, Feb 9, 2013

That the MPTU would then show some asymmetry would appeal to Eastern cultures, recalling that the West has an undue predilection with symmetry.

René

• Greenwood NN & Earnshaw A 2002, Chemistry of the Elements, 2nd ed., Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford

[johnmarks9]

Well, yes, René, I agree with Larry in that PT designs seek Jensenian perfection - and that, for the reasons you give, is an art rather than a science. 

MPTU is not misconceived. It nowhere claims Al ≡ Ga. Cd-Hg are successive members of Group IIA in MPTU and Y-La are successive members crossing a subgroup, viz. IIIA to IIIB.

Your "primary" and "parallel" relationships aren´t objective, René. They are your subjective attempts at seeking Jensenian "perfection".
You cite Greenwood & Earnshaw, but look at their fig. 2.4, p. 30. The B-Al-Ga-In-Өa (Group III) electronegativity plot follows that of C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb (Group IV) and N-P-As-Sb-Bi (Group V), etc. Group III bifurcates at Al such that Al-Sc-Y-Lu follows more closely Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba-Ra. This bifurcation arises from Group III´s position at the junction of s- and p-subshells. It´s not an indication that B-Al-Ga-In-Өa is in any way "less perfect".

Regards,

John

[Rene]

John

My comments were made with respect to Marks' Version of Mendeleyev's 1869 Formulation, https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=1280

Whereas were you referring to Mendeleyev’s Periodic Table after Ramsay & Sommerfeld, https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=1279 ?

René

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Periodic table mailing list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PT-L+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/e4bee8d3-f0c6-4ff3-80d8-623bfd845e7dn%40googlegroups.com.

[John Marks]

Yes René, PT 1280 shows the bifurcation well, with Group III in the p-block.

PT 1279 was intended to reconcile the physicists with Mendeleyev´s layout.

But both are compatible with what I say. 

Referring to PT 1280 for example, one could trace the fit of chemical properties of Group II through Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg just as easily as you trace the trend of Group III through B-Al-Sc-La-Ac. But following such routes for defining groups seems to require arbitrary jumps from s to d in Group II and, in Group III, from p to d to f! Would the physicists be happy with that?

In PT 1279, your designation of membership of the Hauptgruppen would involve similar arbitrary skipping down a column.

Regards,

John

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 15 April 2024 15:29

To: johnmarks9 <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

[Rene]

John

Thanks.

Re: 

"PT designs seek Jensenian perfection - and that, for the reasons you give, is an art rather than a science."

It is not an art, it is science. Jensen referred to the, "simultaneous consideration of as many property-atomic number maps as possible."

There is no art in calculating the average smoothness of (say) 30 physicochemical properties going down any particular options for a group such as B-Al-Sc-Y-La versus B-Al-Ga-In-Tl. There is only science. Here, the former option is smoother.

Re:

"Your "primary" and "parallel" relationships aren´t objective, René. They are your subjective attempts at seeking Jensenian "perfection"."

There is no subjectivity here. The next smoothest physicochemical trendlines for B-Al are for Ga-In-Tl, hence this is the secondary relationship.

Re: 

"You cite Greenwood & Earnshaw, but look at their fig. 2.4, p. 30. The B-Al-Ga-In-Өa (Group III) electronegativity plot follows that of C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb (Group IV) and N-P-As-Sb-Bi (Group V), etc. Group III bifurcates at Al such that Al-Sc-Y-Lu follows more closely Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba-Ra. This bifurcation arises from Group III´s position at the junction of s- and p-subshells. It´s not an indication that B-Al-Ga-In-Өa is in any way "less perfect"."

No, you cannot draw any conclusions from one cherry-picked property. Per Jensen, you have to use as many properties as possible.

Re Group II, the smoothness of trends is significantly smoother going down Be-Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba than it is for Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg.

Apparently the physicists have been happy to leave periodic table matters to the chemists.

René

[John Marks]

But René, Jensen´s "simultaneous consideration of as many property-atomic number maps as possible" isn´t possible and, to the degree that it is, the choice, and especially the weightings of the properties considered, is subjective. So it´s an art, improved by trial and error (witness Mark Leach´s excellent catalogue of PTs!).

On the metaphysics of art and science, you fall prey to the delusion of Occam´s razor: the fewer hypotheses the better, i.e. one is better than two. But this is ultimately an aesthetic criterion also, albeit one which all (who can count!) agree upon, so it seems objective. Jensen´s aim is the converse of Occam but with the same caveat: it is ultimately subjective.

Your argument about "smoothness" is another example of your subjectivity. Who said the electronegativity (or whatever other property) should be "smooth" in the sense you suggest? It may be that the most natural, perfect, ideal, etc., etc., plot of a property may involve a dog-leg or even right angle at the s/p junction or the p/d junction or wherever. Why don´t you argue that C-Si-Ti-Zr-Hf is "smoother" (which it is in your sense!) than C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb?

Clearly there are two plots: one that follows the "straight" main group and the other which dog-legs to follow the A-subgroup after the second member (which I call a "hybrid" group):

Gp. II: straight = Be-Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba-Ra (II-II-II-II-II-II) and hybrid = Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg (II-II-IIA-IIA-IIA)

Gp. III: straight = B-Al-Ga-In-Өa (III-III-III-III-III) and hybrid = B-Al-Sc-Y-Lu (III-III-IIIA-IIIA-IIIA)

Gp. IV: straight = C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb (IV-IV-IV-IV-IV) and hybrid = C-Si-Ti-Zr-Hf (IV-IV-IVA-IVA-IVA)

You choose the straight main groups for Groups II and IV but the dog-leg plot for your hybrid Group III. In fact, Group II has a dog-leg plot following its hybrid members and Group IV has a "smooth" plot if you follow its hybrid members!

Your choice of hybrid over straight groups is subjective.

regards,

John

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 16 April 2024 04:57
To: John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com>

[Larry T.]

Rene,

"Smoothness" is just another subjective way to look at it, as well as "using as many properties as possible". BTW, whatever we call "science" is also subjective and often political, given that a big chunk of it now depends on the government grants. Physicists have learned not to argue with chemists, psychologists and sociologists because they speak math and are always looking for equations and algorithms which have to describe real phenomena as closely as possible. And, again, that is their preference.

VT

22E6-0B60-4E8F-A0EE-A7E3220F5E2B%40webone.com.au.

[Rene]

John, Valery

I will start with Valery’s comments 

"Smoothness" is just another subjective way to look at it, as well as "using as many properties as possible". 

Smoothness is not subjective, it is measurable.

For a property such as melting point you can plot the values going down a group v Z. The smoothness of the resulting line can be determined by linear regression and deriving the goodness of fit parameter.

Turning now to John’s comments.

I will use the example of H over Li-Na-K-Rb-Cs. I have used 14 chemical properties and 18 physical properties. The average combined smoothness of the 14 chemical trendlines and the 18 physical trendlines is 0.52. The standard deviation is 0.33. On this basis, I understand that I can be 95% certain that the average combined smoothness value of 0.52 lies within the range of 0.40 to 0.64. The combined average goodness of fit value for H-F-Cl-Br-I is 0.81

I did not choose the 14 chemical properties and 18 physical properties. Rather, I ran out of quantitative physical properties. There is no art here.

Re:

"Who said the electronegativity (or whatever other property) should be "smooth" in the sense you suggest?"

That would be the periodic law, which says that when the elements are lined up in order of Z an approximate periodicity of properties is observed. The construction of property-atomic maps is independent of the resulting shape of the trendline. Linear regression does not care about the shape of any particular trendline.

The last time I looked at C-Si-Ti-Zr-Hf versus C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb, about two years ago, the average smoothness, across 37 properties, was 0.8 for the first option and 0.786 for the second. Too close to call IOW.

I do not choose straight v dog-leg plots. Rather I go by the combined average goodness of fit values for all of the properties involved.

René

My comments were made with respect to Marks' Version of Mendeleyev's 1869 Formulation,https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=1280

Whereas were you referring to Mendeleyev’s Periodic Table after Ramsay & Sommerfeld, https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=1279 ?

René

On 15 Apr 2024, at 20:27, johnmarks9 <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Well, yes, René, I agree with Larry in that PT designs seek Jensenian perfection - and that, for the reasons you give, is an art rather than a science. 

MPTU is not misconceived. It nowhere claims Al ≡ Ga. Cd-Hg are successive members of Group IIA in MPTU and Y-La are successive members crossing a subgroup, viz. IIIA to IIIB.

Your "primary" and "parallel" relationships aren´t objective, René. They are yoursubjective attempts at seeking Jensenian "perfection".
You cite Greenwood & Earnshaw, but look at their fig. 2.4, p. 30. The B-Al-Ga-In-Өa (Group III) electronegativity plot follows that of C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb (Group IV) and N-P-As-Sb-Bi (Group V),etc. Group III bifurcates at Al such that Al-Sc-Y-Lu follows more closely Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba-Ra. This bifurcation arises from Group III´s position at the junction of s- and p-subshells. It´s not an indication that B-Al-Ga-In-Өa is in any way "less perfect".

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/AS8P194MB167257C9BFE525FAE9531B0393082%40AS8P194MB1672.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Rene]

Larry

Nice try, but no cyber cigar.

It’s certainly absurd to combine average temperatures of living patients with those of deceased ones and call it an average temperature method.

On a more relevant note, the "smoothness method" has undergone rigorous peer review and is published in the Foundations of Chemistry article titled “Hydrogen over helium: A philosophical position.” Here’s the link again in case you missed it the first time: https://rdcu.be/dEYhk The ChemRxiv pre-print alone has garnered 7,958 downloads.

Appendix 2 of the FoC article shows that the average smoothness of physicochemical trendlines for H-Li-Na-K-Rb-Cs is 52%, compared to 81% for both H-F-Cl-Br-I and H-He-Ne-Ar-Kr-Xe sequences. This data supports the periodic law more robustly for the halogen series and noble gases than for the alkali metal series.

While I don’t need to convince the vast majority of chemists of the scientific merits of placing hydrogen over fluorine rather than lithium, it’s worth noting that this configuration further allows hydrogen a knight’s move relationship to lithium. This is not just about positioning but about understanding underlying periodic relationships that are crucial for both theoretical and applied chemistry.

As Mendeleev wrote, it was atomic weight that served as the departure point for the discovery of the periodic law and a law expressed a relationship between variables; atomic weight was the first variable, and chemical and physical properties were the second:

"It is not only in the forms of the compounds that we observe a regular dependency when the elements are arranged according to…atomic weights but also in their other chemical and physical properties.

 

It would be more correct to call my system “periodic” because it springs from a periodic law, which may be expressed as: The measurable chemical and physical properties of the elements and their compounds [italics added] are…[an approximate] periodic function of the atomic weight of the elements. (Mendeleev 1871, 1871a, in Jensen 2005, pp. 45, 116)."

I welcome further input on this topic and am open to exploring this concept with anyone interested in a deeper look at the periodic law.

René

• Jensen, W. B. (ed.): Mendeleev on the Periodic Law: Selected writings, 1869–1905, Dover Publications, Mineola, New York (2005)
• Mendeleev, D.: On the periodic regularity of the chemical elements, Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie, 6 (Supplmentband) 133–229 (1871) in Jensen (2005)
• Mendeleev, D.: On the question concerning the system of elements, Berichte der Deuthschen Chemishcen Gesellschaft, 4, 348–352 (1871a) in Jensen (2005)

On 17 Apr 2024, at 21:33, Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rene,

Your "average combined smoothness" value reminds me joke about measuring average patient temperature in the hospital where four fifth of them have 40 degrees fever and one fifth is already dead, at room temperature, while the management reports that the things are okey using normal average temperature method..

You can always try to convince the vast majority of chemists that H over Li is less scientific than H over F, using your smoothness theory.

Valery-Larry 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/988E69FB-F9E9-4F87-9398-6CEC69F9F9C1%40webone.com.au.

[Rene]

Our discussion regarding the position of hydrogen prompted further reflections on the merits of placing hydrogen (H) above fluorine (F).

I’ve organised my thoughts (below) into three themes: properties of hydrogen; periodic law considerations; and the importance of similarities between hydrogen and lithium.

René

Properties of hydrogen

• The ionization energy of hydrogen falls between that of F and Cl.
• With an electronegativity of 2.2, H is significantly more electronegative than any alkali metal, and it is comparable to At among the halogens.
• Much of hydrogen's chemistry can be explained by its tendency to acquire the electronic configuration of He, similarly to how halogen nonmetals strive to attain a noble gas configuration.
• H is still regarded as an s-block element despite its placement over F, as is the case with He over Ne.
• The properties in which H resembles the alkali metals, except for its valence, are due to different causes than those operative in the alkali metals. H has relatively high electronegativity and ionization energy, whereas the alkali metals have low electronegativity and ionization energy. This means that the circumstances under which H loses its electron are more limited than for the alkali metals, which readily give up an electron. Indeed, causing H to give up its electron is an endothermic process, whereas it is typically exothermic for the alkali metals.

• The Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion values for H and the halogen nonmetals range from 0.07 (H) to 0.8 (iodine). Here, a value of 1 or more is associated with metallization. The values for the alkali metals range from about 2 (Rb) to 5 (Li).
• H forms a weakly acidic oxide namely hydrogen peroxide. In contrast, all alkali metal oxides are basic.

Periodic law considerations

• The physicochemical trendlines going down H and the halogens are approximately 30% smoother, on average, than those going down H and the alkali metals.
• The periodic law interval between H and F, and between He and Ne, is consistently eight.
• All metals are positioned on the left, and all nonmetals are on the right.

Importance of similarities between hydrogen and lithium

• Despite these considerations, it is important to acknowledge the similarities between H and Li. When H is placed above F, these similarities are underscored via a knight’s move relationship between H and Li.
• An example of such a similarity is in electron affinities where H has a value of 73 kJ/mol and the alkali metals are 47 to 60. In comparison, the halogens have values of from about 166 (Ts) to 349 (Cl).

[Larry T.]

Rene,

Your "average combined smoothness" value reminds me joke about measuring average patient temperature in the hospital where four fifth of them have 40 degrees fever and one fifth is already dead, at room temperature, while the management reports that the things are okey using normal average temperature method..

You can always try to convince the vast majority of chemists that H over Li is less scientific than H over F, using your smoothness theory.

Valery-Larry 

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024, 1:14 AM Rene <re...@webone.com.au> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/988E69FB-F9E9-4F87-9398-6CEC69F9F9C1%40webone.com.au.

[John Marks]

Ah! René, you are a noble fellow to have such an open mind!   Are you wavering? 🙂

On your interesting points:

Properties

§4: H may be an s-block element but this is of note only from the perspective of subatomic physics. Chemically, sp³ hybridization is complete.

§5: I think this a most compelling point, particularly the endothermic nature of its ionization.

§6: Goldhammer-Herzfeld corroborates §5.

Periodic law

§3: This is a typical subjective, æsthetic criterion elevated arbitrarily to importance. The periodic leap from non-metals to metals occurs across Group 0. Metals then gradually slope down in ´metallicity´ from Group I to Group VI. This repeats in the next (chemical) period, beginning with Group VII (or -1) and the inert gases.

Similarity with Li

§1: In Mendeleyev (after Ramsay-Sommerfeld), H has a knight´s move with Na and Li has a knight´s move with F.

Regards,

John

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 20 April 2024 07:36
To: Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com>
Cc: Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>; johnmarks9 <johnm...@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

 

Our discussion regarding the position of hydrogen prompted further reflections on the merits of placing hydrogen (H) above fluorine (F).

[Larry T.]

Just want to remind everybody that late Prof. Henry Bent identified H-F and He-Ne as tertiary kinship relationships, just as Mg and Zn.

How this relationship works is best illustrated in the left Step and Adomah tables. BTW, the latter one shows H and He in both positions.

VT

[Rene]

On 20 Apr 2024, at 21:04, John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ah! René, you are a noble fellow to have such an open mind!   Are you wavering? 🙂

: ) I haven’t yet turned my mind to the "H over F" vs "H over He" question aside from thinking that H over F is at least better than H over Li.

On your interesting points:

Properties

§4: H may be an s-block element but this is of note only from the perspective of subatomic physics. Chemically, sp³ hybridization is complete.

I agree with Stewart (2017):

The division into blocks is justified by their distinctive nature: s is characterized, except in H and He, by highly electropositive metals; p by a range of very distinctive metals and non-metals, many of them essential to life; d by metals with multiple oxidation states; f by metals so similar that their separation is problematic. Useful statements about the elements can be made on the basis of the block they belong to and their position in it, for example highest oxidation state, density, melting point ... Electronegativity is rather systematically distributed across and between blocks.

Stewart PJ 2017, Tetrahedral and spherical representations of the periodic system", Foundations of Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 111–120(118)

§5: I think this a most compelling point, particularly the endothermic nature of its ionization.

Indeed!

§6: Goldhammer-Herzfeld corroborates §5.

I’ve attached an image of the GH values by group. H over LI is way out of place. H would fit much better in group 17 or group 18.

Periodic law

§3: This is a typical subjective, æsthetic criterion elevated arbitrarily to importance. The periodic leap from non-metals to metals occurs across Group 0. Metals then gradually slope down in ´metallicity´ from Group I to Group VI. This repeats in the next (chemical) period, beginning with Group VII (or -1) and the inert gases.

Yes, I follow. The question is that since the rest of the elements have intervals of 8-8-18-18-32-32 is there any reason why H would not fit into this pattern? H over F is, after all quite plausible and results in H being treated in the same way as He.

Similarity with Li

§1: In Mendeleyev (after Ramsay-Sommerfeld), H has a knight´s move with Na and Li has a knight´s move with F.

Be careful with that. A KMR between H and Na does not mean much. The "correct" KMR is between H and Li. A KMT between Li and F does not mean anything. The KMR’s for H and He only really stand out when H and He are in their own period.

Regards,

John

thanks John

René

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 20 April 2024 07:36
To: Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com>
Cc: Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>; johnmarks9 <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

 

Our discussion regarding the position of hydrogen prompted further reflections on the merits of placing hydrogen (H) above fluorine (F).

I’ve organised my thoughts (below) into three themes: properties of hydrogen; periodic law considerations; and the importance of similarities between hydrogen and lithium.

René

Properties of hydrogen

• The ionization energy of hydrogen falls between that of F and Cl.
• With an electronegativity of 2.2, H is significantly more electronegative than any alkali metal, and it is comparable to At among the halogens.
• Much of hydrogen's chemistry can be explained by its tendency to acquire the electronic configuration of He, similarly to how halogen nonmetals strive to attain a noble gas configuration.
• H is still regarded as an s-block element despite its placement over F, as is the case with He over Ne.
• The properties in which H resembles the alkali metals, except for its valence, are due to different causes than those operative in the alkali metals. H has relatively high electronegativity and ionization energy, whereas the alkali metals have low electronegativity and ionization energy. This means that the circumstances under which H loses its electron are more limited than for the alkali metals, which readily give up an electron. Indeed, causing H to give up its electron is an endothermic process, whereas it is typically exothermic for the alkali metals.
• The Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion values for H and the halogen nonmetals range from 0.07 (H) to 0.8 (iodine). Here, a value of 1 or more is associated with metallization. The values for the alkali metals range from about 2 (Rb) to 5 (Li).
• H forms a weakly acidic oxide namely hydrogen peroxide. In contrast, all alkali metal oxides are basic.

Periodic law considerations

• The physicochemical trendlines going down H and the halogens are approximately 30% smoother, on average, than those going down H and the alkali metals.
• The periodic law interval between H and F, and between He and Ne, is consistently eight.
• All metals are positioned on the left, and all nonmetals are on the right.

Importance of similarities between hydrogen and lithium

• Despite these considerations, it is important to acknowledge the similarities between H and Li. When H is placed above F, these similarities are underscored via a knight’s move relationship between H and Li.
• An example of such a similarity is in electron affinities where H has a value of 73 kJ/mol and the alkali metals are 47 to 60. In comparison, the halogens have values of from about 166 (Ts) to 349 (Cl).

[Rene]

On 21 Apr 2024, at 12:03, Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just want to remind everybody that late Prof. Henry Bent identified H-F and He-Ne as tertiary kinship relationships, just as Mg and Zn.

How this relationship works is best illustrated in the left Step and Adomah tables. BTW, the latter one shows H and He in both positions.

VT

Thanks Larry. There is an interesting story here.

Henry said (p. 72) it was Jensen who identified these relationships. The article cited by Bent is here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20201110113324/http://www.che.uc.edu/jensen/W.%20B.%20Jensen/Reprints/081.%20Periodic%20Table.pdf

On page 6, Jensen shows the tertiary relationships (mentioned by Bent) in a step-pyramid table, image attached.

Jensen also shows the secondary relationships as H to Li; and He to Be. 

Jensen must have had a bad day at the office if he decided the relationship between He and Ne was "tertiary" rather than primary. The same goes for deciding that H has no primary relationship to any element, and that its relationship to F was "tertiary". It is no wonder that Encyclopedia Britannica on Line (2000) chose not to publish his article.

The second attachment is an extract from Jensen’s step pyramid table of 1987.

He almost got it right then. H to Li is primary (wrong); He to Be is tertiary (right); H to F is secondary (wrong); He to Ne is primary (right)

The third attachment shows what I suggest is the most accurate picture of relationships between H and He, and Li Be, F and Ne.

As I see it, the left step table does not show the tertiary relationships between H-F and He-Be, nor between Mg and Zn. Likewise, Adomah unfortunately relies on showing H and He in two places, thereby being inconsistent with the principle of "one element one place".

René

[John Marks]

Dear René,

Yes, I too agree with Stewart: "The division into blocks is justified by their distinctive nature: s is characterized, except in H and He, by highly electropositive metals;  . . ." Because, of course, H and He are the first two elements of the first (chemical) period, the second (chemical) period continuing with F and Ne . . .

Thanks for the GH plot which is very illustrative.

You ask: "The question is that since the rest of the elements have intervals of 8-8-18-18-32-32 is there any reason why H would not fit into this pattern? H over F is, after all quite plausible and results in H being treated in the same way as He." Well, from my point of view, René, there is absolutely no sufficient reason why H should not fit into this pattern. 

Your remark about "correct" and "incorrect" KMRs is intriguing. Which is the "correct" KMR between Cu-In and In-Bi [1]? What is your criterion of "correctness"?

Regards,

John

[1] Geoff Rayner-Canham "The Periodic Table . . . " World Scientific Publishing 2020, §10, pp. 202-207

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 21 April 2024 05:55
To: John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com>; Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>

[Larry T.]

I just want to refer to the late Henry Bent who wrote that H and He fit perfectly in s-block due to the first element distinctiveness.

VT

[Rene]

On 21 Apr 2024, at 18:46, John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear René,

Yes, I too agree with Stewart: "The division into blocks is justified by their distinctive nature: s is characterized, except in H and He, by highly electropositive metals;  . . ." Because, of course, H and He are the first two elements of the first (chemical) period, the second (chemical) period continuing with F and Ne . . .

John, there is some complexity here. Undoubtedly, the noble gases are the pivots of periodicity.

So the next recurrence of periodicity after He is in Ne.

For H I feel that the question is one of consistency, given the periodic table is primarily a classification and secondly a model (used to make predictions as to the properties of missing elements). I do not see any reason not to treat H in the same manner as He as far as the placement of H is concerned.

On this point I feel hard-pressed to not support H over He, although I appreciate that I can hardly be regarded as being objective on this point. I guess that H over He is analogous to Mendeleev swapping the positions of iodine and tellurium even though this breached the principle of ordering by atomic weight. That said, he had a good enough reason to do so, which was based on their properties.

H over Li is not consistent with the positioning of He over Ne; and a naff modelling choice given the trendlines going down H-F are about 30% smoother than those going down H-Li. Of course there are no missing elements in this case so my argument is based on the principle rather than the substance of the matter. Presumably all items in any particular classification are treated consistently.

Now that I think about it, the periodic law is not necessarily constrained to a perfect semi-regularity such as 8-8-18-18-32-32. The key thing is the approximate recurrence of properties. So intervals of 1-8-8-18-18-32-32 are fine.

Thanks for the GH plot which is very illustrative.

Indeed, the gap between H and the alkali metals is cavernous.

You ask: "The question is that since the rest of the elements have intervals of 8-8-18-18-32-32 is there any reason why H would not fit into this pattern? H over F is, after all quite plausible and results in H being treated in the same way as He." Well, from my point of view, René, there is absolutely no sufficient reason why H should not fit into this pattern.

Yes, H is as much subject to the periodic law as is any other element.

Your remark about "correct" and "incorrect" KMRs is intriguing. Which is the "correct" KMR between Cu-In and In-Bi [1]? What is your criterion of "correctness"?

Since the most stable oxidation state of Cu is +2, and that of In and Bi is +3, the latter would presumably be the "correct" KMR. As Rayner-Canham writes, "The comparative chemistry of indium(III) and bismuth(III) is more extensive. The parallels between indium(III) and bismuth(III) are particularly strong as +3 is the more common oxidation state for both elements."

Regards,

John

[1] Geoff Rayner-Canham "The Periodic Table . . . " World Scientific Publishing 2020, §10, pp. 202-207

Thanks John

René

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>

Sent: 21 April 2024 05:55
To: John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com>; Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

On 20 Apr 2024, at 21:04, John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ah! René, you are a noble fellow to have such an open mind!   Are you wavering? 🙂

: ) I haven’t yet turned my mind to the "H over F" vs "H over He" question aside from thinking that H over F is at least better than H over Li.

On your interesting points:

Properties

§4: H may be an s-block element but this is of note only from the perspective of subatomicphysics. Chemically, sp³ hybridization is complete.

<Screen Shot 2024-04-21 at 13.44.00.jpg>

[Rene]

Thank you Larry.

Henry Bent did not write that H and He fit "perfectly" in the s-block due to first element distinctiveness.

What he wrote was that:

"Helium is the most distinctive element in the Periodic System, when it is located in the s-block above beryllium." (2006, p. 37)

Even here, I am not sure Bent is right. It could well be that He above B would make He an even more distinctive element.

Bent also wrote that:

"The s-block is unique. The Periodic System’s most metallic element lies at its lower left corner. The System's most distinctive element [He] lies at its upper right corner." (p, 193)

This is not so. Fr is expected to be less metallic than Cs due to relativistic effects.

In terms of the rule of first element distinctiveness, it occurs to me that H over Li and He over Be is not consistent since He above Be is more distinct than H over Li. In other words the first-row anomaly strength by block becomes s(H < He) > p > d > f. Whereas with H over F and He over Ne the first-row anomaly strength by block becomes s >> p > d > f.

Bent later tried to correct himself (2011, p. 140):

"Electronegativities of Groups' first element are greater than those of their congeners. That is not the case, however, for He located above Ne, since helium's electronegativity is less than neon's electronegativity."

Not true. In terms of absolute electronegativity, the values for  V, Cr, Mn and Ni in groups 5, 6, 7 and 10 are less than their next row congeners. I base this statement on the finding that the relationship between the Mulliken (absolute) electronegativities of the elements and the work functions of metals are equal. (Chen, Wentworth & Ayala 1977)

On a closing note, Bent wrote (1986, p. 891):

"No model of Nature is perfect. The only perfect model of a flame would be the flame itself. A model. to be useful, must he wrong in some respects. The trick is to see in what respects the model is right—i.e., useful."

René

• Bent HA 1986, A burner and a beaker: Experiments for a first day in a first course in chemistry, JChemEd., vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 890−893
• Bent HA 2006, New Ideas in Chemistry, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, IN, p. 37
• Bent HA 2011, Molecules and the Chemical Bond, Trafford Publishing
• Chen ECM, Wentworth WE & Ayala J 1977, The relationship between the Mulliken electronegativities of the elements and the work functions of metals and nonmetals, The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 2642–2647

<Screen Shot 2024-04-21 at 13.44.00.jpg>

[Larry T.]

Rene,

Henry Bent wrote that on this forum, when he argued with Eric Scerri about He/Be. It was before you joined.

Best Regards,

Valery

[Rene]

That surprises me Larry, that Bent referred to it is as a "perfect" arrangement.

OTOH, I may have spoken out of turn.

On p. 112 of Fresh Energy, Bent writes:

"Required for the display of all desirable features that PTs might display (appendix XV) are several PTs, some of which lack perfect regularity [emphasis added] and, hence, may not require on logical grounds, placement of He above Be."

In Appendix XV, Bent says that one of the features possessed by the LSPT is "no irregularities".

Except that this is not true. The LSPT introduces a raft of irregularities, appended below, that are not seen in the conventional form.

Even here the LSPT is not perfectly regular since the period lengths are 2-2-8-8-18-18-32-32. This is a case of semi-regularity rather than perfect regularity.

René

Irregularities introduced by the left step periodic table

1. Disrupts the metallic to nonmetallic progression of the conventional form.
2. Disrupts the continuity of group numbering since this runs from 3 to 18 and finishes with 1 to 2, rather than the single 1 to 18 sequential numbering of the conventional table.
3. The lanthanides largely show the behaviour expected of main-group elements following the alkaline-earth metals, but the two sets of metals are here placed at opposite ends of the table—the alkaline earths at the far right, and the lanthanides at the far left.
4. The diagonal relationships between beryllium and aluminium; magnesium and zinc; and magnesium and scandium become harder to see, as does the knight’s move relationship between calcium and lanthanum.
5. The ragged left margin of the LST is harder to follow than the ragged right margin normally associated with left to right text.
6. The logic of the dividing line between metals and nonmetals is disrupted. Conventionally, the line is bordered by chemically weak metals and chemically weak nonmetals. In the LST, half the line is bordered by chemically weak nonmetals and chemically weak metals; the other half of is bordered by noble gases and chemically strong metals.
7. The blocks of the LST appear in an order that is the reverse of the sequence in which they are filled.
8. Among helium over beryllium tables the LST has one more differentiating electron discrepancy than does a lanthanum in group 3 table.
9. It ignores the periodic law since lanthanum shows the next recurrence of properties after yttrium, rather than lutetium.
10. Then there are the contentious ad nauseum items: (a) helium over beryllium; (b) the hidden delayed start of the f-block, and the lanthanide contraction; and (c) the irrelevance of lanthanide f-electron counts to their aqueous and solid-state chemistry.

[Larry T.]

Rene,

I just want to remind you that Dr. Bent, was not an amateur like myself, Dr. Scerri, Dr. Stewart and you. He was a prominent and practicing chemist all his life. Everybody can be e wrong, of course, but he is not around to respond and I am not going to take this burden on myself.

Valery

[Rene]

On 22 Apr 2024, at 21:53, Larry T. <ora...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rene,

I just want to remind you that Dr. Bent, was not an amateur like myself, Dr. Scerri, Dr. Stewart and you. He was a prominent and practicing chemist all his life. Everybody can be e wrong, of course, but he is not around to respond and I am not going to take this burden on myself.

Valery

Thank you Valery

You raise an interesting point that prompts several observations about the role of amateurs  Dr Bent’s writings, "perfect" regularity, and the history of the periodic table.

I suggest that whether someone is an amateur or a prominent and practising chemist matters not. What matters is the merit of their work.

Many years ago, 2008 maybe, when I first picked up the courage to email Eric Scerri and ask him whether he would consider an article from someone with no qualifications in science, he responded by saying that I would be most welcome to do so.

Eric added that there has been a long record of amateurs making contributions to to science.

Years later, Philip Stewart wrote an article picking up on this very point, called "Amateurs and professionals in chemistry: The case of the periodic system" (2018). You are mentioned as one of those amateurs who have made a contribution to the science of the periodic table.

In my view, Dr Bent’s passing is neither here nor there. Every day of the week amateurs and professionals scrutinise  discuss, critique, challenge or dispute the work of those who have gone before us. The work of the great Mendeleev comes to mind. Dr Bent’s work is not exempt from such attention.

An informative review of Bent’s book, New Ideas in Chemistry, appeared in 2007. The reviewer, A. Truman Schwartz, an Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, wrote in part:

"The author {Bent] admits that the fdps arrangement also has weaknesses. Trends in elementary electronegativity, metallic-nonmetallic properties, and the acid–base properties of oxides are not clearly revealed; and the placement of the alkali metals adjacent to the rare gases counters the familiar adjacency/ similarity rule. Bent argues that the virtues of the LSPT exceed these failings. But for many of his detractors, the necessity of placing helium above the alkaline earths is an irrefutable objection. Henry recognizes this criticism, indeed, he puns on his own name, Henry Bent, and returns repeatedly to justifying the placement of He above Be. He tells us 1s2 trumps inert gas properties, and placing helium among the alkaline earths is just the most extreme example of the distinctiveness of the first element in any family.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed084p1431

There it is; even Henry acknowledged the weaknesses of the LSPT.

Unfortunately, as if shooting himself in the foot, Bent's assertion that the virtues of the LSPT exceed its failings lacks objectivity.

Further, in his book, Bent starts with the observation that there are no construction conventions for going from Mendeleev’s line to a periodic table (p. 3).

He then suggests four such conventions:

• Elements of each group in vertical columns;
• Z increases from left to right, and top-down;
• No gaps; and
• Maximum regularity in column and period lengths.

From there he says the LSPT is the outcome (p. 3).

While that may be so, my question is: What happened to the periodic law, which would require He over Ne? 

On a related note, Bent himself ironically wrote: "Systems of perfect regularity live dangerously. Any irregularity, or exception, is one irregularity, or exception, too many." (p. 82)

As to the LSPT itself, there have been three epochal moments in the history of the periodic table. The first was when Mendeleev published his short form in 1869. It was the most popular form up to the 1930s. The second was when Deming published his 18-column table in 1923. His medium form resulted in the deprecation of the short-form. The third pivotal moment occurred in 1944 when Seaborg published his actinide hypothesis.

The LSPT (as interesting as it is) hasn't achieved the transformative impact of the "big three" and thus occupies no more than a modest place in the history of the periodic table.

Compounding the situation, Gary Katz, an LSPT advocate noted that, "chemical educators are known to complain that the left-step table is too confusing for students". Indeed.

No more needs to be written.

Thanks Valery for sharing your thoughts.

René

• Katz G 2019, Left-step periodic table, in "Reactions", Chemical & Engineering News, vol. 97, no. 9, https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/periodic-table/Reactions/97/i9

[Rene]

Following up on something I wrote earlier:

... "electrons have their own chemistry as solvated electrons in solution, representing the smallest possible anions. Solid salts containing isolated electrons are known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electride"

So, an electride is an ionic compound in which an electron serves the role of the anion. (Dye 2003)

I have attached a copy of Dye’s article, which refers to an electride that is stable at room temperature namely [Ca₂₄Al₂₈O₆₄]⁴⁺(e⁻)₄.

Since electrons have atomic weight and behave as anions in electrides, it seems self-obvious that the electron would fit quite nicely as element −1, above H. Indeed, it was once suspected that F would be too reactive to isolate yet this did not prevent its inclusion in the periodic table.

Add the neutron above He and that would once and for all eliminate undue concerns about irregular period lengths.

René

[John Marks]

Unfortunately, René, that would give you two more "elements" viz. the electron 0¹ and the proton 1⁰ in addition to H 1¹ . . .  

Back to the drawing board!

John

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 27 April 2024 09:34
To: John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: He over Be; H over Li; Wignerium (Wg)

[Rene]

I don’t believe that would be the case John.

The proton is already represented in the form of a H^+ "cation", or bare proton, which is all that is left after a hydrogen atom loses its electron.

So it’s:

                  Wg  Nn

                  H   He

Li Be B  C  N  O  F   Ne

Na Mg Al Si P  S  Cl  Ar

René

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Periodic table mailing list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PT-L+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/AS8P194MB1672A431F85C66AB5DFF68BC93152%40AS8P194MB1672.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.