ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Reactions

January 18, 2019 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 97, ISSUE 3

 

Letters to the editor

“The” periodic table

09703-reactions-table.jpg
The left-step periodic table

My late father, Henry Bent, delighted in chemical periodicity and ways to depict it and often said there is no place for the article “the” in front of “periodic table”: “Which periodic table is best? is like asking Which table utensil is best?” he says in his book New Ideas in Chemistry from Fresh Energy for the Periodic Law. Earlier in the book, he writes, “The question [of which table is best] is as impossible as unnecessary to answer.”

Attention readers

Are you a US government employee or contractor who is furloughed or working without pay? Is your job or industry otherwise affected by the US federal shutdown? Tell us your story: cenprojects@acs.org. You may choose to be anonymous.

Bent recognized, however, that the shape of Charles Janet’s left-step periodic table is a powerful tool for assigning the problem elements to their correct positions in the periodic system and most notably for promoting helium to its proper spot over beryllium. “Two things are surprising about Mendeleev’s classification of the chemical elements according to the Periodic Law,” Bent writes. “One is how much of the classification has not needed revision. The other is how long the scheme’s second element has been misplaced, above neon, despite Mendeleev’s Rule of Light-Element Distinctiveness; despite his statement that the Periodic System is about atoms, not simple substances; despite classification by atomic physics of helium atoms as s2 systems (not p6 systems); despite appearance of the Left-Step Periodic Table nearly eight [now over nine] decades ago; and despite numerous implications of the LSPT that require placement of helium above beryllium.”

Classifying helium with neon is an artificial classification of simple substances, while classifying helium with beryllium is a natural classification of atoms. Mendeleev noted that both types of classifications are useful, but only the periodic classification of atoms is a natural classification. (The phenomenon of allotropy implies that the periodic classification of the elements is not a classification of simple substances, such as diamond or graphite, oxygen or ozone.) Helium above neon negates many of periodicity’s regularities: it violates the rules of triads, group sizes, first-element distinctiveness, spectroscopic classification of atoms, and atomic structure. In its ionization energy and electronegativity, helium stands to beryllium as (to a good approximation) hydrogen stands to lithium. Not one to understate, Bent writes, “The Mendeleev-Jensen Block-to-Block Trend in Light-Element Distinctiveness . . . is, nonetheless, arguably, the most general feature of the chemistry of the elements after the Periodic Law itself.

“The Mendeleev-Jensen Rule, together with the electronic interpretation of periodic tables, makes helium-above-neon one of the leading contradictions in the history of chemical thought.”

Libby Bent Weberg
Duluth, Minnesota


X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
Philip Stewart (February 1, 2019 5:40 AM)
Janet's table was neglected partly because it was self-published in French. His only article in English, in Chemical News June 1929, was so bowdlerized and badly translated that it was largely ignored. L M Simmons reinvented Janet's table in 1948, . J. Chem. Edu. 25 (12) 658-661. without acknowledging Janet's authorship, and without his wealth of argument and example. Janet's table is the only one in which the rows have an objective justification: the sum of the first two quantum numbers is the same throughout each row. The position of helium should be no problem; in the s-block, as in the p-block, the first row consists of non-metals.
Philip Stewart (July 1, 2019 6:13 AM)
Ms Bent Weberg may be criticised for saying that Mendeleev saw the Periodic System as being 'about atoms', when in fact he did not accept atomic theory (though he used the term 'atomic weight'); the contrast he made was between simple substances and 'elements', but he might as well have said 'atoms', since what he was concerned with was the behaviour of the invisible thing present in different combinations of an element. As regards the distinctiveness of the elements in the first row of each block, that became clear only with the concept of blocks, a term which was, I believe, first used by Janet in 1929. However, it was already evident in Mendeleev's table that the first member of each group was distinctive, as witness his exclusion of the 'typical elements' - lithium to fluorine - from his two-row periods, which began with sodium.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment