Geospheric chart of the elements

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between a novel geospheric classification of elements and the traditional periodic table. The periodic table is favored for its informative structure, organizing elements by proton number and mass, with trends in properties evident within columns and rows. Each group of elements exhibits similar characteristics, such as reactivity and oxidation states, which aids in predicting their behavior. The new geospheric breakdown may offer insights for Earth scientists by linking elements to planetary systems and cycles, suggesting a broader application in understanding elemental evolution in the universe. Overall, the traditional periodic table remains a valuable tool for understanding elemental properties and relationships.
Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
In a recent Discover magazine, the known elements were shown attributable to five geospheric regions: crust & mantle, soil, organismic, oceanic, and atmospheric. Does your natural philosophy favor this distinction or the structure of the more traditional periodic chart?
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
I favour the current periodic table because the current periodic table is very informative.

The chart is listed in order of how many protons the element has (which basically also means in order of mass). If you are to find an element with an expected mass of 123g/mol, you can find where it should be located on the table.

Rows indicate electron energy levels.

Elements in the same column are very similar and follow a trend. If you know the properties of 1 element, you can guess the properties of the other elements in the same column.
All of the noble gases (column on the right) are non reactive.
All of the halogens (second from the right) are fairly strong oxidizers; halogens higher on the table are stronger oxidizers.
Alkaline metals in column1 are all very strong reducers, they get stronger as you move down the table.
All alkaline metals, when thrown in water, create a strong base and hydrogen gas.
Copper, silver, and gold are all in the same column where copper is the top, gold is the bottom. Copper is the strongest reducer, gold is the weakest.

The table is broken into groups based on what the outer electron orbitals are. Alkaline metals and alkaline Earth's are S orbitals. Transition metals are D orbitals. Non-metals are P orbitals,. Lanthanides and actinides are F orbitals.


Could some layer based table brake it down into a more informative way?
 
I think this novel breakdown is most useful for Earth scientists. It apparently ties into the development and cycles of our planet's systems. The connections between elements there may be more subtle and general than, but eventually related to, those of the periodic chart.

Can anyone see a similar application in the evolution of elements located in specific parts of the universe, say on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram?
 
It seems like a simple enough question: what is the solubility of epsom salt in water at 20°C? A graph or table showing how it varies with temperature would be a bonus. But upon searching the internet I have been unable to determine this with confidence. Wikipedia gives the value of 113g/100ml. But other sources disagree and I can't find a definitive source for the information. I even asked chatgpt but it couldn't be sure either. I thought, naively, that this would be easy to look up without...
I was introduced to the Octet Rule recently and make me wonder, why does 8 valence electrons or a full p orbital always make an element inert? What is so special with a full p orbital? Like take Calcium for an example, its outer orbital is filled but its only the s orbital thats filled so its still reactive not so much as the Alkaline metals but still pretty reactive. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks!!
Back
Top