Why Lutetium & Lawrencium always been in f-orbital group?

  • Thread starter Thread starter swampwiz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Click For Summary
Lutetium and Lawrencium are traditionally placed in the f-orbital section of the Periodic Table, which was designed to avoid excessive width and empty spaces. The inclusion of Lawrencium, a challenging element to produce, led to its placement alongside Lutetium to maintain the table's aesthetic integrity. This arrangement has been debated, as it may not accurately reflect the completion of the f-orbital filling. Wikipedia presents a more refined version of the Periodic Table that accommodates all known elements, including these two. The discussion highlights the balance between scientific accuracy and the visual organization of the Periodic Table.
swampwiz
Messages
567
Reaction score
83
It seems that for folks of my generation (Baby Boomer, Generation X), the canonical arrangement of the Periodic Table was for the f-orbital-filling elements to be in a separate section at the bottom. OK, I can see why this makes sense as otherwise the table would be really wide with a lot of empty space. But these 2 elements had always seemed to be included in this bottom section, which is OK for most of those elements, but not for these 2 as the f-orbital should be finished filling up.

Now, what I think happened is that once Lawrencium had been added, new elements became much more difficult to produce, and so rather than have a dangling Lw all by its lonesome, the table presenters simply lumped it and its eka-cousin Lu with the f-orbital sections and just figured that the elegance of the table at that time was worth having it be wrong.

I see that Wikipedia has a proper table, that seems to be at a very elegant arrangement, now that all the elements up to eka-Radon (Oganesson) have been named/added. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perio...periodic_table,_with_Lu_and_Lr_in_group_3.png
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Same approach is used with d block, isn't it?

Sure, the d block was never separated from the rest and put below (or at least I have never seen PT done this way), but when it sits in the middle it stands out together with the Zn, Cd and Hg, all having d10 configuration.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K