Article Views: $blockdata.viewCount

Sign in Area

Please sign in below

Additional Sign In options

Please note that to comment on an article you must be registered and logged in.
Registration is for free, you may already be registered to receive, e.g., the newsletter. When you register on this website, please ensure you view our terms and conditions. All comments are subject to moderation.

Article Comments - To add a comment please sign in


$result.creatorName wrote:


Congratulations to Prof C R Rao who is the first non European to receive 'The Guy Medal in Gold' since 1869. However, the award was long over due as Prof Rao had made significant contribution to Knowledge and application of Statistics to many disciplines. In 1947 he contributed discussion paper which was published in the RSS Journal in 1948 and then he came to Cambridge in 1961 and again his work was published in the Journal of RSS in 1962. He was made Life Fellow of King’s College in1947. His contribution has been many splendorous.

Prof) Sir David Hendry, FBA FRSE Nuffield College Oxford University said.

Dear Professor Deman, Thank you for the material about CR Rao, whose intellectual contributions do indeed place him among the giants of our time. I am delighted to see the long-overdue recognition with theGuy Gold Medal, ..."

It is worth analysing CCR's contribution with other recipients of Guy Medal in Gold to see whether RSS should have given this award to him a long time ago.

Fri Jul 01 22:37:35 UTC 2011

Eric Scerri wrote:

3-D and even higher visualization

Dear Martin, Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you about the need to move to 3-D and if possible higher dimensional representations. Please see my earlier comments in response to those of Eugene Babaev. I would be interested in your views on the Dufour 3-D periodic tree which has always been one of my favorite 3-D systems. It is featured in article I published in American Scientist and also Scientific American among others.

Fri Jul 01 18:57:33 UTC 2011

Martin Channon wrote:

Re: very brief response to Martin Channon

Eric, pending further thought, I would say that you have identified a flaw in my paper. This is a good example of why I wanted someone with your background to look it over before it was published (the Knowledge Organization item). I have a modest background in physics and chemistry, but a better background in 3D, scientific visualization. In fact, I have been wondering why, with only about 100 properties for atoms (or so it seems to me), there can be many more variations of the Periodic Table. What I bring to this debate is a familiarity with the (very significant) advantages of interactive, 3D scientific visualization and, apparently, a temporarily superior perspective on classification tables in general. My intention has always been to simply point to a few overlooked facts and then step aside, letting more competent people take over. Again, I emphasize, that people attempting to identify the best table are almost always thinking in terms of 2D. But even those who are exploring 3D systems are still thinking in terms of static structures. This is surely a mistake. Scientific visualization is no longer subject to these limitations. The use of interactivity (on a computer) allows 3D systems to become practical. (On paper, such systems present readability problems.) The additional use of color effectively allows 4D systems (four parameters).

Fri Jul 01 12:47:31 UTC 2011

Eric Scerri wrote:

Response to Ronald Rich

Yes I realize that the "ink" statement was a 'facon de parler'. I suggest that reminding students or chemists of the behavior of elements is a secondary consideration. Is there not a "fact of the matter" in your view about where repetition actually occurs most distinctly, most objectively? Of course such a question must be answered in terms of chemical behavior, and so on, but the primary purpose of the periodic table and science in general is as much to learn about the world, as it is to have applications, to aid students, control, in a word "utility". This is why I think that even if a particular table might upset the sensibility of the chemist for example, this is not grounds enough to dismiss it. Just as the move from using atomic weight to using atomic number produced a real and objective step forward, we need a clear and definitive criterion to settle placement into groups (and I mean placement just once). Electronic configurations are not sufficiently clear-cut. Witness the issues over H, He, La, Ac, Lu, Lr. As you know I have suggested a more categorical criterion and one which does not cause too much travesty to chemical and physical sensibilities.

Fri Jul 01 00:51:30 UTC 2011

Eric Scerri wrote:

very brief response to Martin Channon

Martin, First of all thanks for your extensive comment. You say, "Now, if the purpose concerns something such as the printed-page display of orbital filling, then the left step table is perhaps the best, as argued by Scerri. Likewise, if we wish to concern ourselves with electron configuration, then the ADOMAH or Tetrahedral Table might be best." My question to you is what is supposed to be the difference between these two 'purposes'. Configuration is dictated by orbital filling surely. Neither is any more fundamental. Configurations are 100% dependent upon order of filling. So what is your point here? eric scerri

Fri Jul 01 00:45:33 UTC 2011

Page:   Prev 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 Next
Bookmark and Share

If you would like to reuse any content, in print or online, from ChemistryViews.org, please contact us first for permission. more


ChemistryViews.org on facebook

ChemistryViews.org on twitter ChemistryViews.org on YouTube ChemistryViews.org on LinkedIn