New Graphical Representation of the Periodic Table 140
KentuckyFC writes "The great power of Mendeleev's periodic table was that it allowed him to predict the properties of undiscovered elements. But can this arrangement be improved? Two new envisionings of the periodic table attempt to do just that. The first uses a new graphical representation that shows the relative sizes of atoms as well as their groups and periods. The other uses the same kind of group theoretical approach that particle physicists developed to classify particles by their symmetries (abstract). That helped particle physicists predict the existence of new particles, but may have limited utility for chemists who seem to have discovered (or predicted) all of the elements they need already."
Call me a cynic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the age-old axiom "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" applies here.
Re:Call me a cynic.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Form follows Function"
The current version is very useful. One can tell which atom is larger than another by simply looking down the column of the element, or across the period (row). The Electron Affinity increases across the period, and up the columns. Many periodic trends can easily be told by the current chart. It is extremely helpful and useful in that regard.
Should we throw away all that usefulness in the name of "fresh" and "new" ideas? I think not.
Circle table is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
The atom size thing is no more present in the circular table than in the normal table. If distance from the center correlates with size, then Li and Ne are the same size according to the circular table. Lithium is about twice as big.
As for the H/He placement, helium is a noble gas, there is no question about that.
The circle table also mucks up the order of filling. Why are neon and lithium next to each other?
Re-inventing the wheel? (Score:5, Insightful)
The new table that came out of Microsoft Research just seems silly. The idea that "closer to the middle means smaller atoms" is a new contribution seems bogus - with the traditional table, closer to the top means smaller atoms. Really the only advantage I can see is the separation of hydrogen and helium away from the other atom groups, which is something that could be easily accomplished using the current table. The circular design itself is a BIG disadvantage.
The second table seems like a more interesting concept. I tried making it through the actual paper - while it sounds like the author thinks the information conveyed in his redesign are better than in the current layout, I didn't see that it actually conveyed new information.
Disclaimer: I have done grad work in physics; but that was almost 20 years ago, and I don't work in anything even close to the field anymore.
Re:You're a cynic! :p ;) (Score:3, Insightful)
Concentric circles don't show that any better than rows do. What rows do better is clearly indicate that the shells get filled in a certain order (left to right). Looking at the circle table, which has more electrons, Li or Ne? F or Ne? Is that intuitive or better?
Re:Call me a cynic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Re-inventing the wheel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Novelty is a handicap (Score:1, Insightful)
Being weird is an automatic handicap. The current layout provides a wealth of data in a grid, something that can be represented in the simplest of data structures. If you're going to switch to circular and have strange shapes and free-floating elements, you need to make up for all the complexity you've added by showing significantly more correlation. This does not in the least. If you want to see alternative layouts that really give the current a run for its money [meta-synthesis.com], check out Stowe's [meta-synthesis.com].
Re:Call me a cynic.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't even read half of the circular table because it's UPSIDE FUCKING DOWN. What a stupid way to represent something. I suppose that if the creator spent more than 10 fucking seconds working on it then they might have realized that they could have flipped the upper half upside down again to make ALL of the elements readable. Of course, that still doesn't help the fact that I don't know where the periods begin or end. It's a circle, there's no start or end part marked. The current table has these nifty things called ROWS and COLUMNS (or periods and groups respectively, for those of you that actually paid any attention in chemistry).
"And the gaps create an immediate sense of wonder." That's CONFUSION, not wonder. The periodic table is a reference and a tool, not a motivational poster or something that should create "wonder". I don't know what field you work in, but I'm going to guess that you use one or more reference books on a regular basis. Imagine taking these reference books, flipping half the pages upside down, and reorganizing the entire thing to make it half as useful but make you "wonder" more. Does that sound like a good idea? Of course not!
Imagine saying, "HEY! Let's take the charts that machinists use to convert between metric, standard, and decimal standard and make them into a circle to illustrate the fact that diameters are related to circles!" You'd be shot, and rightfully so. Imagine taking the dictionary and reorganizing it by which words evoke which emotions rather than by alphabetical order. Same thing.
And you seem to assume that the periodic table is only used by "today's youth". The periodic table is used by ANY CHEMIST doing ANY CHEMISTRY WORK. Again, it's a bloody reference tool. The only reason you assume that most of the people that use the periodic table are children is because you're ignorant of what it actually is or what it's actually used for. You saw it in high school, have never used it since (not surprising if you don't work in a chemistry-related job), but never really stopped to think what it actually is other than a worthless table you had to look at in class.
Re:Call me a cynic.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the age-old axiom "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" applies here.
That maxim is from the uneducated; it actually should read "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But it seldom applies in real life. One needs to do maintenance on nearly any system; you don't wait until your car quits running before you replace the spark plugs, for example.
And if that maxim was universally followed, there would be no technological progress at all. "This device works fine, don't improve it."
However, some "improvements" are like trying to increase your car's gas mileage by taking out half the spark plugs. This chart seems to be like that. Perhaps there is a better way to make the table, but I agree, this isn't it.
Re:Call me a cynic.. (Score:3, Insightful)
To quote someone far more famous than I,
"Form follows Function"
That's the first rule of design (programmers, PLEASE learn that rule!). I never heard who was the originator. So I just now looked it up on Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org]