Over Christmas I was browsing the bookshelves at the house where I grew up and I came across the first periodic table that I ever saw. The book was
part of a Disney series dated around 1970 (I forgot to check).
Anyway, the layout is unusual -- I think obsolete even in that day. Also interesting to note no confirmed name for nobelium. (Flerovium and
joliotium were other names floating around along with some uncorroborated and later retracted data from Swedish experimentation.)
I can see some logic to this arrangement. But it is strange to see Cu, Ag and Au among the group I metals.
Has anyone else seen this arrangement before? What about other historical arrangements?
DraconicAcid - 12-1-2019 at 20:41
Oh, yes, that's the abbreviated version that's been floating around since shortly after Mendeleev wrote up the original, with the IA and IB metals
lumped together.Ogannessionn - 12-1-2019 at 22:37
So what happened to Moscovium, Tennesine and Oganesson.
So what happened to Moscovium, Tennesine and Oganesson.
Hmm it cant be they werent discovered yet...j_sum1 - 12-1-2019 at 23:54
Well, since you raise the matter, Ogannessionn, there's another quirk about this table, or at least the date when it was made. The heaviest element is
103 - right at the end of the actinides. Not explicit in this representation, but I imagine that there was a sense that the table was somehow
complete. A bit like now where we have reached the end of row 7. There is something kind of tidy and organised about having complete rows and no
space-fillers.
Or was that not how people viewed it in the early seventies?
I know that when I first began learning chem the 7th row was full of blanks and systematic names and disputed names and no two tables were the same.
It was like it was torn off at the bottom.
