[desertwister]

This is my first question on this forum. I'm a young postgraduate in Chemistry at the University of Turin (Italy).

Sometime I think about periodic table and I can't understand why now we can't draw it in this way.
[scroll to right for full image]

It's a long time since atomic theory was developed and we still use old classification still based  often on phisical and chemical behaviour of elements. Why we don't start to show a table based wholly on electonic configuration?

Many chimical and phisical behaviour depends by electronic configuration and such a table could show how much is strong the dependence and where there are exceptions. Maybe helping to understand visually why. Infact, for istance, also the so called "noble metals" stay in a position that share some analogies with "noble gas" and so on...

P.S.  notably this table show exactly 120 elements that is a number quite simple

I hope my question is in the right place and not trivial.

[agrobert]

The periodic table is already in order of electronic configuration, which is just a formality (you just reversed it).  I really don't understand how your version is better, its somewhat more confusing and not a aesthetically pleasing.  The trends across and the trends down make sense chemically as well as by physical characterization.  A good discussion would be the placement of hydrogen because of its ability to behave similar to halogens as well as alkali metals.  I think reading more about the periodic table and its evolution would benefit you.  Your curiosity is unique and it is good motivation.  Read about Mendeleev.

[Borek]

There are already dozens of versions of PT:

http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt.html

[desertwister]

I know there are dozens of versions.

Infact the one I've posted is nearly the same as this for istance (reported by webelements):
http://www.webelements.com/nexus/Janet_Periodic_Table

maybe I'm not the only to try to understand why.

The question maybe could be not about the Hydrogen place but about the Helium place that is a S2 full element and usually is placed in the column on the P6 full elements. Why?
Ok show many behaviour similar to other noble gas... and then? So Iron, Cobalt and Nichel are similar and actually in different columns.

It wouldn't be easier for students to learn the table if strictly linked to orbitals occupation?
I think that the answer could be Yes.

I know the history of the table, and what any element means. But it's not the first time that the layout is changed and infact now we use a table very different by Mendeleev original one and not only because now we have discovered many new elements (the original table is there... http://www.webelements.com/nexus/Mendeleev_Periodic_Table).

[Yggdrasil]

He is considered a noble gas because it has a completely full valence shell.  I would strongly disagree placing it above the alkaline earth metals because it does not share any chemical properties with these atoms (e.g. it doesn't preferentially lose two electrons).

Chemistry is not about knowing electron configurations.  Chemistry is about understanding how electron configurations define chemical properties. Helium's placement with the noble gasses reflects this connection between electron configuration and chemical reactivity.

[agrobert]

Chemistry is not about knowing electron configurations.  Chemistry is about understanding how electron configurations define chemical properties. Helium's placement with the noble gasses reflects this connection between electron configuration and chemical reactivity.

Well said.  The other periodic table versions are interesting but not very practical.  Electronic configuration is a difficult concept to grasp initially (highschool) but if you understand the table it makes chemical sense.

[desertwister]

I think that the actual classic periodic table is very regular but in few point show a strange mix between theoretical nuclear properties and chemical reactivity.
In general elements are placed according to electronic configuration but helium is an exception. This is because historically helium has been recognized as a noble gas (and infact it's a noble gas). But beeing a noble gas allow us to destroy the very regular pattern of electonic configuration, of the whole table, only to show this?
I think that it would be better if we placed helium over alkaline-earth and show with graphic effect that it is still a noble gas. In this way you could show the exact regularity of the table and than you could explain why helium is still a noble gas (full electronic shell as other noble gas) but furthermore you could explain many other properties of other elements that are a direct consequence of the orbital occupation.

You are right when saying that  "Chemistry is about understanding how electron configurations define chemical properties" and in fact I think that this is the goal, and I think that a table like the one I've posted could explain better this link - in a deeper way - and could also help to understand properties of other elements that are similar. The problem with Hydrogen for instance or the transition metal properties and so on, that at first sight could appear not easily understandable. 

PS. Anyway according to your arguments if you pick the classic table you'll have problem to understand why Hydrogen is on alkaline column... an element with 2.2 electronegativity... 

[AWK]

Usually numbers are in sequence 1,2,3,4
not ...18, 1, 2

[Mitch]

On any decent periodic table you will find Helium both in Group 2 and Group 18 column. The only reason the actinides and lanthanides are separated is because its problematic to mount such a long poster.

[desertwister]

Mitch, I admire your posts but I'm not sure to have understood your reply.
Did you mean that this is not decent?
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?page=periodictable

[desertwister]

Usually numbers are in sequence 1,2,3,4
not ...18, 1, 2

This is right, but the numbers you cite are referred to standard table... not to the one I've posted.

[Mitch]

Mitch, I admire your posts but I'm not sure to have understood your reply.
Did you mean that this is not decent?
http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?page=periodictable

Yes

[constant thinker]

No matter how you organize a periodic table, in my opinion, you will have exceptions in it regarding physical/chemical properties.

The classic periodic table does a decent job in my opinion at organizing based on physical/chemical properties and allows for easy understanding of electron configuration as long as you know the couple of exceptions.

[bayridge]

One of the major problems with the periodic table is that students must learn it from a flat chart, which cannot really obey the Periodic Law.
There are other minor technical problems and differences in opinion and scientific viewpoint as well, but could some of them be due to aspects of chemistry still undiscovered?

[Quaff]

This is my first question on this forum. I'm a young postgraduate in Chemistry at the University of Turin (Italy).

Sometime I think about periodic table and I can't understand why now we can't draw it in this way.
[scroll to right for full image]

It's a long time since atomic theory was developed and we still use old classification still based  often on phisical and chemical behaviour of elements. Why we don't start to show a table based wholly on electonic configuration?

Many chimical and phisical behaviour depends by electronic configuration and such a table could show how much is strong the dependence and where there are exceptions. Maybe helping to understand visually why. Infact, for istance, also the so called "noble metals" stay in a position that share some analogies with "noble gas" and so on...

P.S.  notably this table show exactly 120 elements that is a number quite simple

I hope my question is in the right place and not trivial.

Lanthanum and lutetium, in the right places ?  
Also, this format puts He to be not in the column with the other "noble" gases.
I like Walter Russell's chart the most.