$blockdata.title

$blockdata.mainText

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

5 Comments

Eric Scerri wrote:

Stowe

Thanks for this catalyzing act Birger. Martin and I are currently in the process of correcting Stowe's system. There are something like 30 elements that I have identified as being strictly speaking in the wrong places according to Stowe's own criteria of using axes having to do with some of the quantum numbers.____ Too bad Stowe cannot yet be found to share this revised version with him. _____ Martin Channon is under the impression that Stowe's system predicts a total of exactly 120 elements and no more on symmetry grounds. _____I don't believe that Stowe's system is committed to this and I think that the system can easily be extended to embody any number of further elements starting at 121. More on this too soon. ______Did Stowe ever produce an article or was it just a table? Where did the Stowe table first appear?

Thu Jul 07 15:22:04 UTC 2011

Birger Hjørland wrote:

Please help us find Dr. Timmothy Stowe

The Stowe table is attributed to "Dr. Timmothy Stowe". I recommended Martin Channon to write about this system in the journal "Knowledge Organization". (Martins paper is expected this summer). Both Martin and I tried vvery hard to identify "Dr. Timmothy Stowe" or any publications by that author. But we were not able to do so. His system plays an important role in the present debate about the periodical system. Please help to identify the originator to the Stowe Table! kind regards Birger

Thu Jul 07 11:59:48 UTC 2011

Eric Scerri wrote:

sorry but still not a refutation

Valery, Excuse me for persisting with this point a little further. You have been a good sport and I dont want to irritate you_____What you propose does not constitute a refutation._____ Yes there might be another system that better reflects properties etc. but that would not constitute a specific refutation of your system. _______Let me give you an example using my own proposal for the system based on maximizing atomic number triads. If hydrogen turns out to be more chemically related to the alkali metals than to the halogens in some decisive way then I withdraw my proposal and I consider it a refutation, regardless of other systems on offer and whether they can cope better with the evidence_______Refutation is established by reference to empirical data not by seeing which theory or model performs better. If a person considers their own system or theory to be non-refutable then they are not doing science. _______This is Popper's view with which you may be familiar and I think it is fair to say that it is largely accepted in broad terms. So far you have not expressed your periodic table in a sufficiently refutable manner as I see it. ________This means you can never be shown to be wrong in a decisive way, much like astrology, voodoo etc. ____Are you planning to come back to talking about dolphins and bats and to respond to my point about them?

Thu Jul 07 05:42:57 UTC 2011

Valery Tsimmerman wrote:

Dolphins, Helium, math, etc.

Well, if you are looking for empirical refutation from me, then I could say following: If someone will come up with a system that reflects spectroscopic features and electronic structure of the atoms better than mine, while retaining continuity with respect to the Atomic Numbers by following n+l rule, I might concede that my periodic table is not the best . Valery.

Thu Jul 07 02:12:11 UTC 2011

Jess Tauber wrote:

Idealized mathematical features

I would submit that Eric's idealized mathematical features might be a better basis for construction of PT models than various collections of chemical or physical behaviors. But one needs to take into account ALL of the math rather than relying simply on this or that. The quantum numbers are not enough as stand-alones. Nor are the relativistic velocities of collections of electrons, or the shielding effects from different orbital types, and so on. They ALL come into play. And we still don't understand everything yet, obviously. I'm not particularly happy with the linear ordering of n, given that all the other numbers tend to be symmetrical. Are we missing something here? If the earlier member of the quantum system actually can be replotted as having some negative value vs. later ones, will that make us look at relativistic velocity in a new way? Do first member elements have anomalous behaviors also because they have a lower set of velocities than some benchmark between C and zero? Jess Tauber goldenratio@earthlink.net

Thu Jul 07 01:04:10 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


CONNECT:

ChemistryViews.org on facebook

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