New Periodic Table Of The Elements

[Kyle Perkins 0]

Though it certainly is elegant, I don't like the new periodic table. No atomic masses are listed, plus it's difficult to find things. Also, when figuring out things like which shell or orbital an element is in (thus allowing you to find electron notation and electron configuration) would be more difficult, as they are all spread out on the new table.Anyway, from the article I gathered this thing is actually being distributed to schools in Britain?I wonder if/when it will hit other countries...hopefully not until I'm out of school, as it would make things really confusing for those transitioning from the old table to the new.-Kyle

[Glockmeister1405241492 0]

Interesting, but probably way harder to read then the normal one. I'll stick with the first one, Thou it is a smart idea.

[musichere 0]

I think it's absolutely dreadful and it will never ever be used becuase noone will want to use it...

[moonwitch1405241479 0]

What I find most confusing is the lack of organisation. The reason elements were aligned in groups was by type. This new lay out would make it harder to grasp the types, or to remember it. I think LOL. It's nice looking and I am sure the guy who made this spent a great deal of time on it, but I can't say I like it much. If you lose the "straightness" and organised things in chemistry, you get hopelessly lost Mendeljev had his reasons for making the table the way it is, to find data in an easy and fast way. I believe that the "new" PSE will make it more difficult. You would need several other pages with tables to find the atomic mass, electron configuration etc. (for me it doesn't matter much, I use a booklet with all those tables in it )

[Glockmeister1405241492 0]

The old one, is a bit more dirct, with more cleareer info so you can read the infomation better. This looks more elegent, but dont replace it with the old one.

[KitKat1405241488 0]

This new table is definitely prettier, and more artistic, but not very practical in my opinion. I've had to memorize a good chunk of the periodic table for some of my courses, and I know that if my table was in that form, it would confuse the heck out of me. I remember my elements according to their rows and columns, and there are also patterns and trends in the table that make sense to have it in the form that it is currently. Don't get me wrong, I like this new design, I just don't think it should be used in teaching classes where the students are expected to learn and utilize it on a regular basis.

[GameUltra 0]

Hmm, very weird, I think it's uspposed to be more attacting to the eye so more young people like the Periodic Table of Elements. I however think the Nebula Backdrop isn't of any use, how does it really relate to the Elements?

[Mtheory 0]

Basically right now it just looks cool....but I'd doubt that would show up in a scientific magazine just because it "looks cool"... maybe there's some unexplained uber-feature that this table has that completely obliterates the one(s) we use now... hmm....

[evought 0]

Here's a link to an article online along with a slide show of pictures. In the slide show, there is a link for viewing a large image of the new table.

Personally, I do not see the point. Mendelev's original table (or the 90-degree rotated version we all learned in school) is clear, concise, and makes the relationships between the elements apparent. It does not waste space or color. Stewart's version has a lot more graphics, but conveys less information and is unclear. I do not understand how a background of stars tells students how elements behave.

[twitch 0]

After careful evaluation of it, I can see the point. But I believe that we are too early in experience to be starting on such complexity. The new table does put it in a better order, and groups things by using concentric circles and wavey patterns. Maths and science has been joined to help create a new table. Personally, I prefer this new table. It, for me is easier on the brain. It may require a little more thinking in the visual department, but that is the way in which I learn and think. However, there is one problem.As you can see from the map, it has only a little space within it for more elements. Unlike the table, it puts them into a logical pattern, and almost mirrors the structure of an atom viewed in 2D. To expand outwards would undermine the current pattern and it would have to be reset. To expand inwards would mean to again expand the outer edges to cope with the intnsity of the elements within. This flaw, undermines it's elegance. And bings back the strength of the periodic table.