Hydrogen over helium: A philisophical position

[Rene]

I have submitted my manuscript (18pp, 5,000 words) to Foundations of Chemistry.

The acknowledgements section reads:

"I thank Julio Antonio Gutiérrez Samanez (2020) whose consistent focus on the regularity of the periods prompted me to experiment further; Eric Scerri (2022) for his philosophical bent, and his advocacy of triads; Nagayasu Nawa for help with the 3D contour map; Gavin Jared Bala, Charles Meeker, and Chris Marks, for their feedback on drafts of this article; Mark Leach for his curation of the Internet Database of Periodic Tables, and his corrections; and John Marks for his questions and value-added “all-guns-blazing” series of critiques."

I also uploaded  copy of the article to ChemRxiv, the preprint server. It should show up there in one to two US working days.

I will post a link here, when that happens.

René

[Rene]

I have submitted this article to Foundations of Chemistry:

Abstract

I critique some grounds relied on by Scerri (2022) in support of the left step table as the most fundamental form of periodic table. My concerns, among others, have to do with: the determination of which triads are valid or “false”; the relevance of chemical properties; the premise of chemists as the owners of the periodic table; the late Henry Bent’s support for the left step table; and chemical periodicity versus philosophical regularity.

The subject of the critique is this article

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-022-09434-x

If anybody would like to review my critique please ping me and I’ll send you a copy.

thank you, René

[Rene]

Colleagues

I am pleased to advise that the pre-print version of my article is now available from ChemRxiv:

https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6370605c80c9bf76689515a5

Happy reading

René

[Julio gutierrez samanez]

Congratulations René, thank you very much for citing my FOCH article (2020), and for considering me in the acknowledgments with such benevolence, your article will give much to comment on, because it addresses, with another perspective, the burning issue of the new form of the Periodic Table ;  it is different from the IUPAC standard table and also from the LSPT, which Eric is defending lately with his new presentation of triads, which I think is nothing more than a way of expressing my proposal for binodes.  In a certain way, your proposal 1, 1, 8, 8… is similar to mine.  I was surprised to learn of DIM's ideas about spiral shapes and how those ideas have changed over time and into the future with my 3D spiral proposal.  

Finally, I have seen that the table proposed by Kurunshki, with columns of alkali and alkaline earth metals in 7 and 8 levels, is very similar to your Yin Yang proposal, I consider that both are like bridges between the tables in controversy.  But, the bottom line is to reveal the mathematical functions "dependent on something", as DIM wanted, which I believe is the principal quantum number "n".  

Kurunshki, whom I met in St. Petersburg 2019, has an article about Romanov, a little-known Russian scientist, on whose chart he had drawn a spiral identical to mine, I don't know if he described it.  

About Master Ymyanitov, I think he is unaware of my work, he is the only one who wrote about “dialectics” on these topics.  

Receive a big hug from the Andes mountains, in Cusco Peru, at 3400 meters above sea level.  

Julio

 

Felicitaciones René, muchas gracias por citar mi artículo de FOCH (2020), y por considerarme en los agradecimientos con tanta benevolencia, tu artículo dará mucho que comentar, porque enfrenta, con otra perspectiva, el tema candente de la nueva forma de la Tabla Periódica; es diferente a la tabla estándar IUPAC y también a la LSPT, que Eric está defendiendo últimamente con su novedosa presentación de las tríadas, que creo que no es otra cosa que una forma de expresar mi propuesta por bínodos. En cierta forma, tu propuesta 1, 1, 8, 8… no deja de asemejarse a la mía. Me sorprendió saber de las ideas de DIM sobre las formas espirales y cómo han cambiado esas ideas con el tiempo y en el futuro con mi propuesta espiral 3D. Finalmente, he visto que la tabla propuesta por Kurunshki, con columnas de los metales alcalinos y alcalino térreos en 7 y 8 niveles es muy parecida a tu propuesta Yin Yang, considero que ambas son como puentes entre las tablas en controversia. Pero, el fondo está en develar las funciones matemáticas “dependientes de algo”, como quería DIM, que yo creo que es el número cuántico principal “n”. Kurunshki, a quien conocí en  San Petersburgo 2019, tiene un artículo sobre Romanov, un científico ruso, poco conocido, en cuya tabla había dibujado una espiral idéntica a la mía, no sé si la describió. Acerca del maestro Ymyanitov, creo que desconoce mi trabajo, él es el único que escribió sobre la “dialéctica” en estos temas.  Reciba un gran abrazo desde las montañas de los Andes, en Cusco Perú, a 3400 msnm. 

Julio

--
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/A83011A8-9968-4771-997B-7152C4F945E7%40webone.com.au.

--

Enviado con Gmail Mobile

[Rene]

Colleagues

Please find attached a pre-print version of my article (3,000 words), "A critique of “In praise of triads” by Eric Scerri."

I have not uploaded it to ChemRxiv as I would like to give Eric an opportunity to first respond.

Eric’s open access article on triads is here https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-022-09434-x

May I encourage you to seek to get published your own ideas in journals such as Foundations of Chemistry. There are plenty of us here who can offer the benefit of our experiences getting into print.

René

[Rene]

I am further pleased to advise that my first external review is in, from an emeritorious professor of chemistry:

"This an interesting and valuable paper. I do not agree with the solution proposed, but it does make one think. It does so effectively. Hydrogen clearly belongs on the nonmetal side of the periodic table. A lot of work has gone into the historical literature on the place of hydrogen and related topics, so much that this is a hard paper to read. But the merits of this paper far outweigh its deficiencies (or rather excesses).

René

[Julio gutierrez samanez]

I reiterate my gratitude René, thank you for your kind generosity in mentioning my modest name in an article of such importance.  I wish you every success.

Julio Antonio Gutierrez Samanez. 

--

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/FCEC56ED-2251-4762-A3CC-C35EFA498894%40webone.com.au.

[René Vernon]

I stumbled upon this pyramidal PT by Scholten (2005) and noticed it has H over He:

https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=347

René

[Julio gutierrez samanez]

Very interesting, dear René, in fact the hydrogen is above the helium, but it is also above the other columns.  As in Chancourtois, the highlight here is that the distribution of the pair of 8, 8 elements is perfect, from 5B to 12Mg and from 13Al to 20Ca.  Not so, of the pair 18, 18, which must be done in two laps, adding 26, 27, 38 and 44, 45, 46, to the pyramidal regularity.  Then, between 57La and 72Hf, 14 elements are "lost".  Because 32, 32 elements must be distributed.  Mr. Scholten did not know that the periods appear in pairs according to a "hateful" mathematical symmetry (I don't know if conventional or of nature itself), which is summarized in (2n^2, 2n^2) or (4n^ 2).  Don't you think that it is more important, much more important, that the hydrogen is above the helium? 

Julio. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/0c0789b1-43f0-434e-a3e5-77d326f0f47en%40googlegroups.com.

[Rene]

On 13 May 2023, at 11:40 pm, Julio gutierrez samanez <kut...@gmail.com> wrote:

Very interesting, dear René, in fact the hydrogen is above the helium, but it is also above the other columns.  As in Chancourtois, the highlight here is that the distribution of the pair of 8, 8 elements is perfect, from 5B to 12Mg and from 13Al to 20Ca.  Not so, of the pair 18, 18, which must be done in two laps, adding 26, 27, 38 and 44, 45, 46, to the pyramidal regularity.  Then, between 57La and 72Hf, 14 elements are "lost".  Because 32, 32 elements must be distributed.  Mr. Scholten did not know that the periods appear in pairs according to a "hateful" mathematical symmetry (I don't know if conventional or of nature itself), which is summarized in (2n^2, 2n^2) or (4n^ 2).  Don't you think that it is more important, much more important, that the hydrogen is above the helium? 

Dear Julio

If Scholten had intended for H to be above the other columns I expect he would have placed it in the centre of the pyramid. He did not do so and instead placed it above H. This kind of makes sense since He follows H.

Since the most popular form of period table has period lengths of 2, 8, 8, 18, 18 the need to have pairs of periods of equal lengths is evidently not regarded as being important.

I do not feel that symmetry is hateful. For example I appreciate the beauty of the five Platonic solids.

I do not feel that symmetry is more important than H over He. This does not make sense anyway since H over He results in paired periods of 1, 1, 8, 8, 18, 18 etc.

There is a good article about symmetry and asymmetry here: 

“Symmetry is beautiful, but asymmetry is why the Universe and life exist”

https://bigthink.com/13-8/matter-antimatter-asymmetry/#

There is one thing this article leaves out which is to clarify Dirac’s views on symmetry.

Kragh (1990, p. 290), writing in Dirac: A scientific biography, has this to say about Dirac’s view on beauty and elegance:

“It is one thing to boldly maintain belief in a theory in spite of some empirical counter-evidence, but it is another thing to stick obstinately to the theory and disregard any kind of conflicting experimental results. Neither Dirac nor other adherents of mathematical beauty would accept an extreme Cartesianism, divorced from any empirical considerations. Dirac’s advice, that one should disregard experimental results which are "ugly," was wisely but somewhat inconsequently supplemented with the proviso that "of course one must not be too obstinate over these matters" (Dirac M 1972, "Basic beliefs and fundamental research," unpublished talk, University of Miami.)."

Proponents of the importance of symmetry consistently overlook Dirac’s qualification to his view on symmetry.

René

[Jess Tauber]

In my CML tetrahedral models, we have a tetrahedron of 20 close-packed spheres each representing one element for the first four Janet periods in the LST, and this then surrounded by a 'jacket' of 100 close-packed spheres for the next four LST periods. If we extended the LST each successive jacket would contain enough spheres to constitute the next four Janet periods. As for the centraiity of H in the preceding discussion, even in the CML H does NOT occupy a central position. It CANNOT, because this structure HAS no sphere occupying a central position. Rather the sphere representing hydrogen is offset from the center of the core tetrahedron of 20 spheres. I wonder whether this offset might have consequences for the properties of the other elements as well? Could the shift from the LST to the standard table via incorporating two s elements into the next Janet period from the previous one is some sort of symmetry effect, basically translational, rotational, or mirror symmetry within the tetrahedral structure, or some combination of the aforementioned?

Jess Tauber

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/FFD68DC2-AFA3-485D-8B31-261AD9585E5C%40iinet.net.au.

[johnmarks9]

Dear René,

"Hydrogen is troublesome in any periodic table classification". No, it isn´t in, for example, Mendeleyev revisited (2021). 

Your ´bridge´ argument is good, but you concede your basis is "looking for a higher order" of things. But what is the yardstick?

Period lengths are NOT arbitrary. Beginning from the beginning, they are 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, . . . and accord with chemistry.

The argument from chemistry (Liptrot 1983) is good.

As I wrote on 5th May in this thread, the arguments used in the paper are largely subjective and not convincing as teaching aids nor as an interesting new perspective.

Since you agree with the reviewer that chemistry has not been reduced to physics, why publish another table seemingly trying to obfuscate the distinction? Wouldn´t simply acknowledging a PT for physics and a PT for chemistry be better? Especially pedagogically?  

So I´m inclined to agree with the reviewer.

John

[Rene]

Thanks John. Comments below.

On 3 Dec 2023, at 04:11, johnmarks9 <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear René,

"Hydrogen is troublesome in any periodic table classification". No, it isn´t in, for example, Mendeleyev revisited (2021)

In MR, H is placed into a Group I, as follows:

    Type      Electronegativity

===============================

H   Nonmetal  2.2

F   Nonmetal  3.98

Cl  Nonmetal  3.16

Mn  Metal     1.55

Br  Nonmetal  2.96

Tc  Metal     1.9

I   Nonmetal  2.66

Pm  Metal     1.2

Re  Metal     1.9

At  Metal     2.2

Np  Metal     1.36

H is troublesome here for at least three reasons:

1. There is no rhyme or reason for the sequencing of nonmetals and metals;

2. There is no scope for acknowledgement of the similarities of H to the alkali metals. At least in the conventional form in which H is above Li, there is a knight's move relationship between H and F; and

3. While H over He can be referred to as "Hydrogen and the noble gases", MR has a group with H + four halogen nonmetals + three transition metals + one post-transition metal + one lanthanide + one actinide.

Your ´bridge´ argument is good, but you concede your basis is "looking for a higher order" of things. But what is the yardstick?

Thanks. The primary yardstick is regularity in the occurence of period lengths i.e., 1, 1, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32 rather than 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32, per Julio’s consistent focus on the regularity of the periods.

Period lengths are NOT arbitrary. Beginning from the beginning, they are 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, . . . and accord with chemistry.

Your comment is out of context from what the paper says:

"According to Stewart (2018):

The division of elements into periods is arbitrary; the Greek periodos means simply ‘coming around’. The sequence of elements is a continuum and there are different ways—at least six published—of cutting it up into repeating sections."

The argument from chemistry (Liptrot 1983) is good.

Thanks.

As I wrote on 5th May in this thread, the arguments used in the paper are largely subjective and not convincing as teaching aids nor as an interesting new perspective.

The paper now says:

"The intention of this alternative periodic table layout is not to set aside quantum mechanical principles, but to provide a different perspective that may be useful for specific applications or educational purposes. Thus, in chemistry education and research, it is understood that the periodic table is a tool that can be adapted to fit the task at hand. The standard periodic table is just one of many possible ways to arrange the elements, and while it is the most common and widely useful, it is not the only valid way to understand or present the relationships between elements. Furthermore, chemistry has not been fully reduced to physics (Scerri 2020, pp. 275–276). While quantum mechanics provides a fundamental explanation for many chemical phenomena, chemistry as a discipline often deals with more complex systems and behaviours that are not easily reduced to simple physical principles. Therefore, different representations of the periodic table can coexist and be useful in various contexts, depending on which aspect of the behaviour of the elements is most relevant to the discussion at hand."

Since you agree with the reviewer that chemistry has not been reduced to physics, why publish another table seemingly trying to obfuscate the distinction? Wouldn´t simply acknowledging a PT for physics and a PT for chemistry be better? Especially pedagogically?

There seems to be a lot to be said for incorporating physics **and** chemistry into the one PT e.g. the IUPAC table. As the paper says:

"Since the periodic table is, "the supreme example of a scientific system of classification” (Scerri 2010, p. 270),[1] the result is a classification that is more systematic, and pattern-like, and has better regularity; not on the basis of regularity for regularity’s sake but on the basis of looking for a (more orderly) order of things as the highest purpose of science.

A similar regularisation occurred during the 1930s to the 1960s, when B-Al came to be relocated from group 3 over Sc, to group 13 over Ga (Parkes 1943, pp. 656, 675). This occurred despite trends in properties being smoother going down B-Al-Sc-Y-La (Greenwood & Earnshaw 2002, pp. 222–226

[1] Scerri (2012, p. 283): “Recall that the periodic table which has been the subject of a good part of the recent prediction-accommodation debate is not a theory, at least for the vast majority [italics added] of authors.”

Another reason for seeking to publish this paper is that it represents the first, to my knowledge, formal proposal to place H over He.

There seems to at least some interest in it. ChemRxiv show that’s it’s been viewed 295 times and downloaded 291 times.

René

[John Marks]

Ah René, clever response, as usual.

You´d be a good barrister 🙂

MR represents the chemical "echoes" extending through s, p, d and f. The way you´ve presented Group -1/VII (NOT Group I: that´s Li, Na . . . Fr) ignores the fact that this pattern encompasses the ´A´ and ´B´ subgroups as well and, without acknowledging that reason, what you´ve erroneously called Group I would indeed appear "without rhyme or reason". That is why I added the Ramsay-Sommerfeld variation (Fig. 5 in MR) to explain this.

"Periodos" may mean just "coming around" but you know that it also means a regularity - from scientific use, such as the period of a wave (the wavelength), through to quotidian uses such as menstrual periods (monthly). Equally so in the PT: from its beginning, with hydrogen, very obvious repetition occurs in octaves, starting with H to O and F to S and then getting blurred with the addition of the d-elements (A subgroups) and the f-elements (B subgroups). This is far from arbitrary: in the B subgroups, Ce has far more similarities to Group IV than, for example, Pm does; Yb has more similarity to Group II than, for example, Ho does, etc., etc. Such analogous similarities are even more marked in the A subgroups. This is the purpose of MR: to bring out these similarities and their gradations: there is obviously greater similarity between members of Group V than between members of Group V and Group VA but members of Group VA are, in turn, more similar to Group V members than those of VB are.

As you know, I don´t think IUPAC is a recommendation, nor is its ´combined´ PT helpful. It obscures both chemistry and physics by trying to do both at once - and falls between two stools. So a IUPAC PT and a IUPAP PT seem better for both disciplines.

B-Al over Ga-In-Өa was simply putting the Group III p-elements all together in one group because the previous arrangement was not regular: it was like putting Li-Na-K with Cu-Ag-Au instead of Rb-Cs-Fr. Scerri has become a bit of a fence-sitter. Forcing chemistry into physics for some subjective "regularity" is like squashing apples and oranges together and hoping for a good fruit.

I certainly agree with the reviewer that your paper is well written, René. And also that it´s probably the definitive paper for the H over He argument.

Regards,

John

---

From: Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 03 December 2023 07:05
To: johnmarks9 <johnm...@hotmail.com>
Cc: Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen over helium: A philisophical position

 

[Julio gutierrez samanez]

Dear Colleagues, it's good to hear from you, I thought I had already been removed from the thread. Ha ha ..

René, was your article published in FOCH?

I see that we are still “in the swamp” arguing about the position of hydrogen and helium and the issue of “non-reduction of chemistry to physics.” John believes that PT for physicists and chemists should coexist and that it is a mistake to try to reconcile both, since each science has its particularities or preferences, I agree with that.

The PT of Chemicals has proven to be useful, with all the deficiencies that we find in it. For my part, I think that both chemistry and physics are sciences, to the extent that they can be explained with mathematics. That is, the “final reduction” must be carried out with mathematics. If this were so, then we would have to agree that the ordered list of elements or chemical species is a natural mathematical series, (Z). Like a tape measure.

The Peruvian chemist Baca Mendoza (1953) proposed the relationship as the first Genetic Law or Period Law: Z = k +[1(n)], where K is an initial constant equal to 1; n values ​​of 0, 1, 2, 3, … then Z = 1, 2, 3, 4…

Then he proposed placing ten of these natural series in columns, one on top of the other, making the series of the noble gases coincide as the main vertical column, then he counted the elements and discarded those that appeared duplicates and, in this way, naturally, the staggered form (8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32...) . Baca Mendoza deduced a law of group formation, which forms the columns of elements, and another Law of period limitation, which generates the steps and the size or number of elements that make up each symmetrical pair of elements that he called “binodes.” Only H was outside the rules and the table.

I applied (2004) those criteria to Janet's proposal (LSTP) (1929). She deduced the laws or rules from her. But I went one step further, “stretching” the LSTP, so that its 8 steps became 4. It turns out that everything boils down to three laws or rules dependent on a number “n”. The first: (2n^2), generates the size of the double periods or a “pattern of divisions” in the radial, polar or spiral distribution, in two or three dimensions.

The second is the duplication of the previous one: (4 n^2) and generates the number of elements in each pair of periods (Binodic Law). But, for the entire natural series Z to be a function of the pairs of periods (n), these pairs or binodes must be moved in the graph, making a sum of these: Z=4[SUM (n^2)].

These mathematical Laws show the “regularity” that John claims, they provide a basic foundation for physicists, since they are consequences of QM. “Not just the Madelung rule.” And, in addition to preserving the independence of chemistry, -which is an eminently empirical science-, he gives mathematical foundation to the "periodicity", to the initial position of H, to the vector, Cartesian or polar position, of each of The elements; Well, in the spiral or helix that I presented in 2018, all the elements find their exact place at the intersections of the spiral (or better the adjacent spirals, since they have differences between themselves), with the lattice or division pattern (2n^2) . Obviously, mathematics and analytical geometry give us a new, different perspective and take us chemists and physicists out of the swamp in which we had “shipwrecked” with Byzantine discussions.

Much more so, when it becomes evident that “n” is, at the same time, the principal quantum number and the number of the pair of periods, (dyad or binode or “new concept of period, as the sum of semi-periods, by Pavel Kudan) , and, explains the apparent doubling, in number, of the periods, the existence of triads that Scerri delved into and the predictive possibilities that DIM brilliantly used.

This subjects many chemical, physical or physicochemical properties to a set of rules, laws or simple mathematical functions. Why don't we adopt them in our conversations, teaching and in the study curricula? If the introduction of this topic as the initial chapter of the PT could ultimately bring new developments in the didactics and pedagogy of our chemical science, in addition to making it more accessible for everyone. It is not “beauty” – so dear to Dirac – that counts, but simplicity and novelty.

Thank you René and John for continuing to make us think.

Julio

Enviado con Gmail Mobile

--
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/AS8P194MB1672D28DD0DCD1CE4F67B7A09387A%40AS8P194MB1672.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Rene]

On 3 Dec 2023, at 21:09, John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ah René, clever response, as usual.

You´d be a good barrister 🙂

Thanks John. My mother though I’d be one of those. I instead became a Human Resources Director, after thinking I’d be a metallurgist or a science/chemistry teacher.

MR represents the chemical "echoes" extending through s, p, d and f. The way you´ve presented Group -1/VII (NOT Group I: that´s Li, Na . . . Fr) ignores the fact that this pattern encompasses the ´A´ and ´B´ subgroups as well and, without acknowledging that reason, what you´ve erroneously called Group I would indeed appear "without rhyme or reason".

Yes, I appreciate that now.

That is why I added the Ramsay-Sommerfeld variation (Fig. 5 in MR) to explain this.

That is perhaps why it is hard to appreciate what MR tries to do, since it requires a second PT to do so.

"Periodos" may mean just "coming around" but you know that it also means a regularity - from scientific use, such as the period of a wave (the wavelength), through to quotidian uses such as menstrual periods (monthly). Equally so in the PT: from its beginning, with hydrogen, very obvious repetition occurs in octaves, starting with H to O and F to S and then getting blurred with the addition of the d-elements (A subgroups) and the f-elements (B subgroups). This is far from arbitrary: in the B subgroups, Ce has far more similarities to Group IV than, for example, Pm does; Yb has more similarity to Group II than, for example, Ho does, etc., etc. Such analogous similarities are even more marked in the A subgroups. This is the purpose of MR: to bring out these similarities and their gradations: there is obviously greater similarity between members of Group V than between members of Group V and Group VA but members of Group VA are, in turn, more similar to Group V members than those of VB are.

Perhaps if the colour scheme of MR was based on block membership it would be easier to appreciate these subtleties.

As you know, I don´t think IUPAC is a recommendation, nor is its ´combined´ PT helpful. It obscures both chemistry and physics by trying to do both at once - and falls between two stools. So a IUPAC PT and a IUPAP PT seem better for both disciplines.

Yes, IUPAC’s PT is not a recommendation as they go to obscure lengths to make clear. The IUPAC table is tilted more in favour of chemistry than physics, rather than being intentionally positioned between two stools. There is no IUPAP PT AFAIK; IUPAP leave these things to IUPAC.

B-Al over Ga-In-Өa was simply putting the Group III p-elements all together in one group because the previous arrangement was not regular: it was like putting Li-Na-K with Cu-Ag-Au instead of Rb-Cs-Fr.

The fact that B-Al over Sc-Y-La appeared irregular, despite having smoother vertical trends than Ba-Al over Ga-In-Tl,  is a reflection of the fact that real chemistry is not neat and tidy.

AFAIK Li-Na-K over Cu-Ag-Au never appeared since Li-Na-K-Rb-Cs was much smoother in terms of the trendlines going down each option. That is, there was never any need to make things appear more regular.

Scerri has become a bit of a fence-sitter. Forcing chemistry into physics for some subjective "regularity" is like squashing apples and oranges together and hoping for a good fruit.

I suppose so. Eric seem to recognise the futility of arguing for He over Be, At the same time he remains a staunch advocate for Lu under Y despite the numerous shortcomings of such a configuration.

I certainly agree with the reviewer that your paper is well written, René. And also that it´s probably the definitive paper for the H over He argument.

Thanks.

[Rene]

On 4 Dec 2023, at 05:39, Julio gutierrez samanez <kut...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Colleagues, it's good to hear from you, I thought I had already been removed from the thread. Ha ha ..

Thanks Julio

René, was your article published in FOCH?

Not yet; I’ve only just received the peer review. The draft of the article, which the peer review applies to, is here:

https://chemrxiv.org/engage/api-gateway/chemrxiv/assets/orp/resource/item/6370605c80c9bf76689515a5/original/hydrogen-over-helium-a-philosophical-position.pdf

I see that we are still “in the swamp” arguing about the position of hydrogen and helium and the issue of “non-reduction of chemistry to physics.” John believes that PT for physicists and chemists should coexist and that it is a mistake to try to reconcile both, since each science has its particularities or preferences, I agree with that.

I don’t think it is a mistake to reconcile both. This can be done in a manner as shown in the Yin Yang of the Periodic Table:

https://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=1252

The only thing I would now change would be, on the right table, to move B-Al back over Sc-Y-La, Ac. I’m not yet sure about H.

The PT of Chemicals has proven to be useful, with all the deficiencies that we find in it. For my part, I think that both chemistry and physics are sciences, to the extent that they can be explained with mathematics. That is, the “final reduction” must be carried out with mathematics. If this were so, then we would have to agree that the ordered list of elements or chemical species is a natural mathematical series, (Z). Like a tape measure.

Jensen (1986, p. 498) summarised the situation nicely:

"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, be it maximum oxidation state or electronic configuration."

Jensen WB 1986, Classification, symmetry and the periodic table, Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 12(1-2), 487–510. doi:10.1016/0898-1221(86)90167-7 

If the final reduction of chemistry to mathematics was ever achieved we would end up with a periodic table that was quite irregular, given chemistry deals with far more complex systems and behaviours than the depicted by the regularities of quantum mechanics.

Recall it is the classification of the elements that informs the shape of the periodic table rather than theory and mathematics. Forcing the reality into the model is the wrong approach.

As Eugen Schwarz (2019, pers. comm., 8 Dec) wrote, “The real, rich pattern of elements’ chemistry does not fit into a clear-cut rectangular grid.”

The Peruvian chemist Baca Mendoza (1953) proposed the relationship as the first Genetic Law or Period Law: Z = k +[1(n)], where K is an initial constant equal to 1; n values ​​of 0, 1, 2, 3, … then Z = 1, 2, 3, 4…

Then he proposed placing ten of these natural series in columns, one on top of the other, making the series of the noble gases coincide as the main vertical column, then he counted the elements and discarded those that appeared duplicates and, in this way, naturally, the staggered form (8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32...) . Baca Mendoza deduced a law of group formation, which forms the columns of elements, and another Law of period limitation, which generates the steps and the size or number of elements that make up each symmetrical pair of elements that he called “binodes.” Only H was outside the rules and the table.

This is an example of applying mathematics to determine the shape of the PT, rather than classification science, or forcing the reality into the model.

I applied (2004) those criteria to Janet's proposal (LSTP) (1929). She deduced the laws or rules from her. But I went one step further, “stretching” the LSTP, so that its 8 steps became 4. It turns out that everything boils down to three laws or rules dependent on a number “n”. The first: (2n^2), generates the size of the double periods or a “pattern of divisions” in the radial, polar or spiral distribution, in two or three dimensions.

The second is the duplication of the previous one: (4 n^2) and generates the number of elements in each pair of periods (Binodic Law). But, for the entire natural series Z to be a function of the pairs of periods (n), these pairs or binodes must be moved in the graph, making a sum of these: Z=4[SUM (n^2)].

These mathematical Laws show the “regularity” that John claims, they provide a basic foundation for physicists, since they are consequences of QM. “Not just the Madelung rule.” And, in addition to preserving the independence of chemistry, -which is an eminently empirical science-, he gives mathematical foundation to the "periodicity", to the initial position of H, to the vector, Cartesian or polar position, of each of The elements; Well, in the spiral or helix that I presented in 2018, all the elements find their exact place at the intersections of the spiral (or better the adjacent spirals, since they have differences between themselves), with the lattice or division pattern (2n^2) . Obviously, mathematics and analytical geometry give us a new, different perspective and take us chemists and physicists out of the swamp in which we had “shipwrecked” with Byzantine discussions.

Much more so, when it becomes evident that “n” is, at the same time, the principal quantum number and the number of the pair of periods, (dyad or binode or “new concept of period, as the sum of semi-periods, by Pavel Kudan) , and, explains the apparent doubling, in number, of the periods, the existence of triads that Scerri delved into and the predictive possibilities that DIM brilliantly used.

This subjects many chemical, physical or physicochemical properties to a set of rules, laws or simple mathematical functions. Why don't we adopt them in our conversations, teaching and in the study curricula?

We don’t adopt them because, as a classification, the PT is informed by the physical and chemical properties and behaviours of the elements, rather than by mathematics. Such mathematics could describe the shape of the PT; such mathematics cannot and does not determine the shape of the PT.

If the introduction of this topic as the initial chapter of the PT could ultimately bring new developments in the didactics and pedagogy of our chemical science, in addition to making it more accessible for everyone. It is not “beauty” – so dear to Dirac – that counts, but simplicity and novelty.

Thank you René and John for continuing to make us think.

Julio

Enviado con Gmail Mobile

None of what I wrote above necessarily works against alternative periodic table layouts which seek to provide a different perspective that may be useful for specific applications or educational purposes. Thus, in chemistry education and research, it is understood that the periodic table is a tool that can be adapted to fit the task at hand. The standard periodic table is just one of many possible ways to arrange the elements, and while it is the most common and widely useful, it is not the only valid way to understand or present the relationships between elements.

René

PS "Janet" was Charles Janet, a boy rather than a girl.

[John Marks]

---

From: pt...@googlegroups.com <pt...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rene <re...@webone.com.au>
Sent: 04 December 2023 02:25
To: John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com>

Cc: Periodic table mailing list <PT...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrogen over helium: A philisophical position

On 3 Dec 2023, at 21:09, John Marks <johnm...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ah René, clever response, as usual.

You´d be a good barrister 🙂

Thanks John. My mother though I’d be one of those. I instead became a Human Resources Director, after thinking I’d be a metallurgist or a science/chemistry teacher.

René, maybe you should have become a metallurgist, like my grandfather. With the resurgence of interest in Cold Fusion, superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensates, your skills would likely have been in much demand - especially with the hoo-ha that´s brewing over the fate of MH370.

MR represents the chemical "echoes" extending through s, p, d and f. The way you´ve presented Group -1/VII (NOT Group I: that´s Li, Na . . . Fr) ignores the fact that this pattern encompasses the ´A´ and ´B´ subgroups as well and, without acknowledging that reason, what you´ve erroneously called Group I would indeed appear "without rhyme or reason".

Yes, I appreciate that now.

Thanx

That is why I added the Ramsay-Sommerfeld variation (Fig. 5 in MR) to explain this.

That is perhaps why it is hard to appreciate what MR tries to do, since it requires a second PT to do so.

Yes, indeed. And I therefore posted the "historically definitive" PT (Mendeleyev after Ramsay and Sommerfeld) on Mark Leach´s database, with the arguments.

"Periodos" may mean just "coming around" but you know that it also means a regularity - from scientific use, such as the period of a wave (the wavelength), through to quotidian uses such as menstrual periods (monthly). Equally so in the PT: from its beginning, with hydrogen, very obvious repetition occurs in octaves, starting with H to O and F to S and then getting blurred with the addition of the d-elements (A subgroups) and the f-elements (B subgroups). This is far from arbitrary: in the B subgroups, Ce has far more similarities to Group IV than, for example, Pm does; Yb has more similarity to Group II than, for example, Ho does, etc., etc. Such analogous similarities are even more marked in the A subgroups. This is the purpose of MR: to bring out these similarities and their gradations: there is obviously greater similarity between members of Group V than between members of Group V and Group VA but members of Group VA are, in turn, more similar to Group V members than those of VB are.

Perhaps if the colour scheme of MR was based on block membership it would be easier to appreciate these subtleties.

Yep - hence the Ramsay-Sommerfeld PT.

As you know, I don´t think IUPAC is a recommendation, nor is its ´combined´ PT helpful. It obscures both chemistry and physics by trying to do both at once - and falls between two stools. So a IUPAC PT and a IUPAP PT seem better for both disciplines.

Yes, IUPAC’s PT is not a recommendation as they go to obscure lengths to make clear. The IUPAC table is tilted more in favour of chemistry than physics, rather than being intentionally positioned between two stools. There is no IUPAP PT AFAIK; IUPAP leave these things to IUPAC.

Yes, I don´t understand IUPAP´s reluctance since physics has a real stake in subatomic physics.

B-Al over Ga-In-Өa was simply putting the Group III p-elements all together in one group because the previous arrangement was not regular: it was like putting Li-Na-K with Cu-Ag-Au instead of Rb-Cs-Fr.

The fact that B-Al over Sc-Y-La appeared irregular, despite having smoother vertical trends than Ba-Al over Ga-In-Tl,  is a reflection of the fact that real chemistry is not neat and tidy.

True. Chemistry isn´t "neat and tidy". So one mustn´t invest too much in forced regularities. It´s like ignoring the fact that Boltzmann´s ideal gas is not, in fact, ideal.

AFAIK Li-Na-K over Cu-Ag-Au never appeared since Li-Na-K-Rb-Cs was much smoother in terms of the trendlines going down each option. That is, there was never any need to make things appear more regular.

Didn´t some of the early short-form PTs follow this? Even Mendeleyev (1871) had Li-K-Rb-Cs and H-Na-Cu-Ag-(Өu)-Au . . .

Scerri has become a bit of a fence-sitter. Forcing chemistry into physics for some subjective "regularity" is like squashing apples and oranges together and hoping for a good fruit.

I suppose so. Eric seem to recognise the futility of arguing for He over Be, At the same time he remains a staunch advocate for Lu under Y despite the numerous shortcomings of such a configuration.

On both these points, I agree with Eric.

I certainly agree with the reviewer that your paper is well written, René. And also that it´s probably the definitive paper for the H over He argument.

Thanks.

You´re welcome, René. Power to your elbow. 

Anything more happening with the "Tao of the PT"?

J.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PT-L/856FDE0F-0B2C-42EA-A91A-218EFD166647%40webone.com.au.

[Rene]

When H is positioned over He, there are a couple of interesting knight’s move tours, each with four steps.

So, imagine H is a knight chess piece, positioned above helium:

 

                       +--+

                       |H |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Li|Be|B |C |N |O |F |Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Tour A (eastwards)

Step 1. Hydrogen lands on lithium, presuming the chess board wraps around:

                       +--+

                       |x |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Hi|Be|B |C |N |O |F |Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

x marks the spot where H departed from.

Since H is traditionally positioned over Li this move needs little comment.

While hydrogen has been known for decades to participate in secondary interactions known as “hydrogen bonds” the analogous “lithium bond” was first suggested in 1958 and predicted theoretically in 1970. Since then the analogy has been generally accepted and “lithium bonds” have been the basis of many theoretical and spectroscopic investigations.

Step 2. From lithium, hydrogen lands in the space above boron:

                       +--+

                       |  |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |H |  |  |  |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |xi|Be|B |C |N |O |F |Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

For hydrogen above boron please see after my sig block.

Note the diagonal relationship between H and C. In this case, Cronyn (2003) argued for placing H above C: "The proper place for hydrogen in the periodic table," J. Chem. Educ. 80 (8), 947–951.

Step 3. From above boron, hydrogen lands on nitrogen:

        

                       +--+

                       |  |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |x |  |  |  |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Li|Be|B |C |HN O |F |Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Both H and N are relatively unreactive colourless diatomic gases, with comparably high ionization energies (1312.0 and 1402.3 kJ/mol), each having half-valence subshells, 1s and 2p respectively. Like the reactive azide N3− anion, inter-electron repulsions in the H^− hydride anion (with its single nuclear charge) make ionic hydrides highly reactive. Unusually for nonmetals, the two elements are known in cationic forms. In water the H^+ “cation” exists as an H13O6^+ ion, with a delocalised proton in a central OHO group. Nitrogen forms an N5^+ pentazenium cation; bulk quantities of the salt N5^+SbF6^− can be prepared. Coincidentally, the NH4^+ ammonium cation behaves in many respects as an alkali metal cation.

Step 4. From nitrogen, hydrogen lands in the space above fluorine:

                       +--+

                       |  |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |H |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Li|Be|B |C |xN|O |F |Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Since positioning H above F is often espoused as an alternative to H above Li, the relationship between H and F needs no further comment.

Tour B (westwards)

Step 1. From atop helium, hydrogen lands on fluorine:

                       +--+

                       |x |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Li|Be|B |C |N |O |HF|Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

The relationship between these two needs no comment.

There is an alternative route in which H lands above O:

                       +--+

                       |x |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |  |  |  |H |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Li|Be|B |C |N |O |F |Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Hydrogen and oxygen are the only elements that are colourless, flammable, diatomic gases. Mendeleev presumably chose them as a basis to compare the properties of the then known elements since the two gases were relatively easy to work with, and reactive, and formed compounds with most elements. Each is known in triatomic forms, hydrogen as interstellar trihydrogen and oxygen as metastable ozone. The ionization energies for H and O are virtually identical, at 1312 and 1313 kJ/mol.

Both elements are known in cationic forms—H as [H(OH2)n]^+ and O as the dioxygenyl cation O2^+—and anionic forms. They have a curious relationship with potassium; the hydride (with H having an oxidation state of -1) reacts violently with water to yield KOH and hydrogen gas; the peroxide (with O having the same oxidation state) reacts violently with water to yield KOH and oxygen gas. More broadly, incorporating hydrogen in transition metal oxides was reported to lead to oxyhydride systems in which O and H together form an anionic substructure.

Together they form aqua vitae. Water is a spectacular anomaly. Extrapolating from the heavier hydrogen chalcogenides, water should be “a foul-smelling, poisonous, inflammable gas…condensing to a nasty liquid [at] around –100° C.” Instead, due to hydrogen bonding, water is “stable, potable, odourless, benign, and…indispensable to life”.

Other H-O compounds are the peroxide, trioxide, tetroxide, and pentoxide, and the ubiquitous hydroxyl anion OH–. Alkali metal ozonide salts of the unknown hydrogen ozonide (HO3) are known; these have the formula MO3. Finally, there is the protonated superoxide HO2 or hydroperoxyl. This plays an important role in the atmosphere and, as a reactive oxygen species, in cell biology.

Step 2. From fluorine (or above oxygen), hydrogen lands on phosphorus:

                       +--+

                       |  |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |  |  |  |x |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Li|Be|B |C |N |O |xF|Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|HP|S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

Curiously, the electronegativity and electron affinity values of H and P are almost identical at 2.2 and 2.19; and 72.8 kJ/mol and 72 kJ/mol.

H and P together form a large number of compounds with chain, ring and cage structures. Analogously, N and P form an extensive series of  compounds having chain, ring and cage structures.

I have previously noted the vertical relationship between H and N, and the diagonal relationship between C and H.

Step 3. From phosphorus, hydrogen lands on boron:

                       +--+

                       |  |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Li|Be|HB|C |N |O |F |Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|xP|S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

For hydrogen and boron please see after my sig block.

Step 4. From boron, hydrogen lands in the space above lithium:

                       +--+

                       |  |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |H |  |  |  |  |  |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Li|Be|xB|C |N |O |F |Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

The relationship between H and Li needs no further comment.

Closing comment

Let us not forget that H above He means that H is equidistant, in knight's move terms, to F and to Li:

                       +--+

                       |H |
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |He|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Hi|Be|B |C |N |O |HF|Ne|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

  |Na|Mg|Al|Si|P |S |Cl|Ar|

  +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8

René

Hydrogen above boron

There are several grounds for placing H over B:

• H (Z =1) is half a pseudo-octet from B (Z =5)
• a progression in metallic character, from a weak non-metal (H), through a metalloid (B), via two weaker amphoteric metals (Al-Ga), to two metals (In, Tl)
• H is clearly molecular; B is network covalent (mean coordination number 6.6); Al has interatomic bonding that is partially directional in nature (CN 12); Ga is a molecular metal, having a CN of 7 (i.e. 1+2+2+2); In has a partially distorted structure associated with incompletely ionized atoms and has a coordination number of 4+8; Tl has a close-packed structure (CN 6+6) but an abnormally large inter-atomic distance that has been attributed to partial ionization of the Tl atoms.
• H over B yields an "honorary metal" line (i.e. near-metalloids) passing through H-Rn:

H

B  C

Al Si P

Ga Ge As Se

In Sn Sb Te I

Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn

Note however that relativistic effects are expected to result in At being a metal rather than a metalloid.

• +1 is known for all members of the resulting hybridized group, H-B-Al-Ga-In-Tl. This oxidation state becomes more stable going from B to Tl such that monovalent Tl is preferred. The halides form B(I) derivatives; B4Cl4 is well characterized. In MgB2 there is a charge of −1 on each B atom. Al(I) chemistry is rare but there is enough of it to support its own Wikipedia article, Aluminium(I). For Ga and In there are e.g. Ga2Y (Y = O, S, Se); red InCl (mp 225°C), InI[InIIITe2] and InI[In3Y3] (Y=Se, Te).
• an extensive chemistry between H and B i.e. the boranes BxHy, their anions BxHy^–, and related cations e.g. H2B^2+
• the triangular H3^+ cation is the most prevalent form of H in the universe; B can form triangular B3^2– and B3^+ rings
• the hydronium cation H9O4^+ and the pentaborane anion B5H8^− are isoelectronic.
• a diagonal relationship between H and C
• carborane chemistry, BC2Hn^+2.

[Rene]

I rechecked the smoothness of chemical and physical trendlines going down groups 1, 17 and 18, each with H as the first member.

For example, for a plot of Z v orbital radii for groups 1, 17 and 18 each with H as their first member, the smoothness of 2nd-order polynomial trendlines going down each group are 0.8051, 0.9084, and 0.893. This means that, for this singular property, placing H either over F or over He is a better fit than placing H over Li.

The relevances is that Jensen referred to the periodic table as:

"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."

So that you can see what I mean I’ve attached a plot of Z vs orbital radius for H-He-Ne-Ar-Kr-Xe-Rn. The smoothness of the curve is given by the R2 number, i.e.0.893

For 35 chemical and physical properties, the average smoothness of trendlines is:

Group 1   0.52

Group 17  0.80

Group 18  0.81

On this basis one might be inclined to say that there is good case for placing H over F, in group 17. However, this overlooks that fact that H has a not insignificant number of properties that overlap with the properties of the alkali metals, such as electron configuration and a capacity to form a solvated cation in aqueous solution. There is also a lot of history and convention behind H over Li. In a sense, H over F doesn’t resolve anything.

Placing H over He instead maintains the dual lineage of H with Li and with F via knight’s move relationships. There are numerous other benefits, as mentioned in my article.

Below I’ve listed the average smoothness values for all 35 chemical and physical properties.

René

Chemical properties	Group 1	Group 17	Group 18	Notes
1. Covalent radius	0.8516	0.9608
2. Electron affinity	0.8436	0.482	0.3557
3. Electronegativity	0.535	0.2586	0.2062	A
4. Entropy of hydride	0.2417	0.9278
5. First IE	0.5411	0.6397	0.5157
6. Heat capacity of hydride	0.9576	1
7. Heat capacity oxides	0.9685
8. Heat of formation of fluoride	0.2664
9. Heat of formation of iodide	0.5899
10. Heat of formation of oxide	0.1516
11. Melting point of fluorides	0.3647	0.4258
12. Melting point of iodides	0.6411	0.9256
13. Promotion energy	0.4529	0.6783	0.6825	B
14. Standard electrode potential	0.3908	0.0444
Average	0.56	0.63	0.44
Physical properties
1. Atomic weight	0.9996	0.9998	1
2. Boiling point	0.0719	0.9775	0.9804
3. Critical density		0.9486	0.9789
4. Critical pressure		0.9855	0.908
5. Critical temperature	0.1171	0.9872	0.9802
6. Density	0.9157	0.9555	0.9998
7. Electrical conductivity	0.3796	0.936	1
8. Enthalpy of atomisation	0.8623	0.4637	0.3017
9. Enthalpy of fusion	0.2105	0.969	0.9835
10. Enthalpy of vaporization	0.2468	0.9817	0.9851
11. Heat conductivity	0.397	0.9854	0.8098
12. Melting point	0.1417	0.9835		C
13. Molar heat capacity	0.681	0.6888	0.3017
14. Molar magnetic susceptibility	0.6194	0.9644	0.9818
15. Orbital radius	0.8051	0.9084	0.893
16. Packing efficiency	0.4141	0.857	0.9283	D
17. sp electrons	1	0.5295	0.6691
18. Solubility in water			0.9848
19. Standard molar entropy	0.1128	0.6767	0.9699
20. Static dipole polarizability	0.8747	0.9749	0.9715
21. Vapor pressure	0.0636	0.9782	0.9813
Average	0.50	0.89	0.88
Combined average	0.52	0.80	0.81

Notes. A: Allen values; B: Energy required to promote an electron to a higher shell; C: Noble gases were excluded as helium does not solidify at ambient pressure; D: The packing efficiencies are for the elements in ambient conditions.

[René Vernon]

FY!, Eric has accepted my revised MS for publication in FoC.

[René Vernon]

fyi, I've received the proof copy of the article, so am in the home stretch. I'll post a copy of the published article here.

[René Vernon]

The outsourced provider who prepares the proofs altered, without my agreement, the full page landscape version of Nagayasu's spectacular electronegativity contour map of left-step periodic table with metals on the left and nonmetals on the right, so that it would fit as a squashed down portrait version. It has taken me until 15 Feb i.e. 3.5 weeks of hassling and complaining to get an updated proof with only this one error fixed. 34 errors have still to be fixed. I will be asking for another proof as I have no trust that they will get it right the second time.

René

[René Vernon]

Well there has been some slow progress. After sending a request for the 34 errors to be rectified I received an update proof 10 days later. Checking that proof, I found 12 more errors (3 of my own causing: headslap!). I have today passed on the remaining 12 errors and requested, yet again, an updated proof. You would think we are working in the age of type metal galleys and paper proofs, rather than the 21st century. I expect my FoC article to appear online by Xmas. There have been quite some refinements compared to the ChemRxiv version.

[Rene]

I am very pleased to provide you with a link to this now published Foundations of Chemistry article, which includes a spectacular contour map periodic table by Nagayasu Nawa.

https://rdcu.be/dEYhk

The Electronic Supplementary Material can be accessed via this link:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-023-09496-5#Sec20

René

[Rene]

I am very pleased to provide a link to this now published Foundations of Chemistry article, which includes a spectacular contour map periodic table by Nagayasu Nawa.

https://rdcu.be/dEYhk

The Electronic Supplementary Material can be accessed via this link:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-023-09496-5#Sec20