Tech | October 08, 2009 | 28 comments

Does a Circular Periodic Table Make Sense?

source: http://blogs.discovery.com/space_disco/2009/10/does-a-circular-periodic-table-make-sense.html

Image
pjacobs51
Chemistry classes used to frustrate me. Trying to remember all those elements in the Periodic Table felt like trying to learn the French vocabulary. And I despised my French classes. It's little wonder, then, that I dropped both French and Chemistry around the same time to focus on Physics.

Although I might be pretty limited in the foreign language and chemical departments, I think my focus on astrophysics was a good choice. That was until I had to study spectroscopy at university and that table made an appearance in my textbooks once again. Bummer. There was no escape.

However, if I'd seen the Periodic Table organized in a fun-looking pattern like this, I may have been a little less intimidated. It's not just the fact that it looks like the design of a crop circle that makes it interesting, the diagram is actually useful.

This new-look Periodic Table is the brainchild of Mohd Abubakr from Microsoft Research in Hyderabad, India, who points out that the circular design gives a sense of the relative sizes of the atoms (i.e. hydrogen and helium are near the center of the table, as they are the smallest). By placing these small elements in the middle, it avoids the confusion about where to place hydrogen (in the halogens or alkali metals) and helium (in the 2nd group or inert gases) in the table. Although I don't remember that particular problem in my Chemistry class, as I wasn't paying that much attention.

Still, this is pretty groovy, and although there are some short-fallings with it (i.e. you can't easily rotate your computer monitor to read all the elements), the new design would certainly be an interesting new look into the relative sizes of elements.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Current Tonight,   Upstream,   5 more
  2. tags:
    Science,  Charts,  Graphs,  Elements,  2 more
  3.     
    |

28 comments // Does a Circular Periodic Table Make Sense?

  • Ogaal
    • 0
      Ogaal  

    • Ah, yes that version of it in your picture becktionary83 is DEFINITELY worse then the circular version of the Periodic Table to the 9 trillionth degree/power.

      I guess it's about time really, after all they did re-invent the food pyramid.

      But.........."If it ain't broken don't fix it!"

    • 2 years ago
  • bailey78
  • becktionary83
    • 0
      becktionary83  
    • Image

    • Redesigning the periodic table is nothing new, in fact many proposals have been brought up before. The beauty of the original periodic table is that it is extremely easy to understand and if you were to look at another version like the one here or the one featured above it may look wicked awesome but it lacks practicality.

      Ultimately, I'm glad that those in the science community pull the strings when it comes to changing the field and not a bunch of yahoo's that just think an alternative "looks cool".

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • royulery
    • 0
      royulery  

    • sure are a lot of elements to discover, to fill in the outer ring. if there is dark matter then there will be a lot of anti-gravity elements and maybe extra dimensional elements.

    • 2 years ago
  • wolfinsheepsclothing
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  

    • Well, the regular periodic table doesn't make sense to me. So whether the circle does or not I'm going to use it as an excuse from now for why it doesn't make sense.

      "Sorry bro, the regular periodic table just doesn't make sense to me unless it's a circle. I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!"

    • 2 years ago
  • pandaman2105
  • UndoInfluence
    • 0
      UndoInfluence  

    • As with some of the above posters I fail to see how "going out from the center to determine relative size" is any easier than "going from left to right, top to bottom." Every year or so some attention seeking spaz puts together a new version of the periodic table and is determined to show everyone how much smarter his idea is. For the most part these have all failed.

      In fact I'd say this chart is much worse than the current periodic table as there's no clear break to show you when you'd go to the next ring or any sort of relation to valence electrons. So much for providing a clear order...

    • 2 years ago
  • cyanide7
  • Argon18
    • 0
      Argon18  

    • As good_stuff mentioned a spiral might be a better way of organizing them since that way it could show the relationship between the different octaves of energy so that might make more sense.

      It might be easier to tell why argon is a semiconductor that way

    • 2 years ago
  • gh15hidalgo
  • advertisehere
    • 0
      advertisehere  

    • i dont think its a good idea, there are other properties of the elements, like size, electron affinity, and reactiveness, that have clear patterns across the table.

      "To quote someone far more famous than I,
      "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."
      -Afforess
      http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/06/189205/New-Graphical-Representation-o...

    • 2 years ago
  • TheBrownKid
  • larrysnotes
  • JeremyTG77
  • sgwhites
    • 0
      sgwhites  

    • This seems more confusing to me, but I can see how it might be easier to follow for some. (I am a memorization person, not a visualization sort.)

      It did, however, make me think of this video.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ogaal
  • bhigginbotham
    • 0
      bhigginbotham  
    • Ogaal:

      Possibly the poor layout of the current table of elements. Just because that's how we did it before doesn't mean that's what is actually best or how we should do it moving forward. Change is sometimes good ya know.

    • 2 years ago
  • becktionary83
  • Sam_the_Wizer
  • stonefree87
    • 0
      stonefree87  

    • It's interesting, mainly because it keeps the important patterns in tact, such as the grouping of the noble gases, the transition metals, etc.

      But I think the circular shape is the deal breaker. Chemists use the periodic table all the time while working, nobody wants to be flipping a chart around and around all day long.

    • 2 years ago
  • 24French
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • Or you could just not be an idiot and look at the number and/or weight which direcly correspond to the size. High number is big, low number is small; this is why helium floats. How do people mess up this most basic concept?

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • good_stuff:

      Why do you have so much resistance to an easier organization of the chart?

      Should we make things purposefully more difficult just to adhere to tradition?

      That doesn't make any sense.

    • 2 years ago
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  
    • good_stuff:

      Besides having to read it upside down sometimes, shouldn't it be in a spiral pattern? If you had to tell me which of the green atoms is largest, how would you do it (without reading the numbers, which as I've said is a dead giveaway)? Is it the top one that is largest, or the bottom, left, or right? On the old table you just followed it the way one would read a book, smallest in the top left and biggest on the bottom right.

    • 2 years ago
  • think_free
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • good_stuff:

      Dude, I'm super right brained, and the periodic table made perfect sense to me just the way it was.

      It made sense because it was organized in columns, with the noble gases all in a vertical line, the transition metals in the middle (transitioning), and the alkali metals on the left.

      And then the poor metals were all UNDER the nonmetals. (cause they're poor)

      And all the shit that for all intents and purposes doesn't really exist sits in the basement, in a bunker.

      This new one just confuses me. Where are the element groups? How are they ordered by weight?

      But then, I actually gave a shit when I took chemistry, so that might have helped.

    • 2 years ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos