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

  • Thread starter Thread starter swampwiz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the placement of Lutetium (Lu) and Lawrencium (Lr) within the f-orbital group of the Periodic Table. Historically, these elements were included in a separate section at the bottom of the table to maintain its elegance and avoid excessive width. The addition of Lawrencium prompted a re-evaluation of this arrangement, leading to its inclusion alongside Lutetium in the f-orbital section. The current representation, as seen on Wikipedia, reflects a more accurate arrangement of elements, including those up to Oganesson (Og).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Periodic Table structure
  • Knowledge of f-orbital and d-orbital electron configurations
  • Familiarity with the historical context of element discovery
  • Awareness of modern representations of the Periodic Table
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the electron configurations of Lutetium and Lawrencium
  • Explore the historical development of the Periodic Table
  • Examine the significance of the f-orbital in chemical properties
  • Learn about the latest updates in the Periodic Table, including new elements
USEFUL FOR

Chemistry students, educators, and researchers interested in the structure and evolution of the Periodic Table, as well as those studying the properties of f-orbital elements.

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
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K