This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
The polonium article states that "Due to its position in the periodic table, polonium is sometimes referred to as a metalloid, however others note that on the basis of its properties and behaviour it is 'unambiguously a metal.'" It has many more metallic properties than non-metallic ones (see Metalloid#Polonium). Shouldn't we be basing our treatment and classification of an element on the basis of its properties and behaviour and not its position in the periodic table? Double sharp ( talk) 08:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Consistent with the above observations, I struggle to find sufficient grounds for classifying polonium as a metalloid. It shows a few nonmetallic or intermediate properties but these are 'trumped' by its metallic properties, especially the combination of: metallic band structure; metallic conductivity; the presence of a polonium cation in mildly acidic aqueous solution; and the basicity of its oxide. Polonium would be better classified as a post-transition metal. As you note R8R, the nonmetallic properties of polonium are found in, for example, some of the transition metals yet these are not classified as metalloids.
Astatine suffers from having a relatively obscure chemistry. Per Double sharp, this means that it tends to inherit the default nonmetal status of its lighter halogen congeners. Apparently halogen membership trumps being next to the metal-nonmetal dividing line, artificial as the latter construct is. OTOH, reading selectively from the literature:
Against this background, and noting...
...astatine is currently better classified as a metalloid. IMPs of iodine include: residual metallic luster; semi-conductivity (band gap = 1.35 ev); photoconductivity; electron delocalization within the layers of the solid iodine lattice; its metallic transformation under the application of relatively modest pressure; the metal-like electrical conductivity of the liquid form; the existence of the +1 iodine cation in pyridine solution and associated salts; and the polymeric structure of its most stable oxide, I2O5.
Sandbh ( talk) 07:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly convinced that At deserves to be called a metalloid, but that would clash with its (also relevant) halogen status. What do you propose? (Getting rid of the "halogens" category would solve the problem, but would be far too drastic for my tastes.) Double sharp ( talk) 13:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Double sharp ( talk) 14:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Lanthanides | Actinides | Transition metals | Post-transition metals | Metalloids | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases |
Double sharp ( talk) 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the halogens should be kept on the table. They are distinctly different from other nonmetals, and have their own chemical properties. However, in the case of astatine, I like the idea that was proposed in the Polonium--Metal or Metaloid section: See whether astatine has more metaloid or halogen properties. King jakob c ( talk) 14:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As flagged, here's a table that addresses the problems with the categorization of Al and At, and retains and expands the presence of group names:
Non-standard colour scheme. An old one I found in my files; haven't spent any time seeing if it could be improved.
Pre-transition metals. As used in the literature. Cox (2004, pp. 185–186) is a good example.
Rare earth metals. I've used this as a category name given it's more popular than 'lanthanides'. Google returned 1,170,000 hits for rare earth metals and 739,000 for lanthanides.
Poor metals. No accepted short-hand term exists for the well-documented notion of a bunch of 'second string' metals characterized by physically and chemically weaker metallic properties, and which generally occupy the region between the transition metals and the metalloids. I agree with Double sharp that 'poor metals' is a reasonable title for this category, given the problems with the alternatives e.g. 'B metals'; 'B subgroup metals'; 'chemically weak metals'; 'metametals'; 'other metals'; 'post-transition metals'; and 'semimetals'. [That being so, I like the old school feel of 'B subgroup metals' and could go with it as long other editors wouldn't see too much of a clash with the 'type a | borderline | type b' categorisation construct for the behaviour of metal ions.]
I've shown Be, Al, Cu, Ag, Au and Lr as partly belonging to this category. The non-metallic properties of Be (metallic-covalent bonding structure; predominately covalent chemistry; amphoteric oxides; anionic beryllate formation) are cited in the literature. Rayner-Canham and Overton (2006, pp. 29–30), for example, categorize Be as a chemically weak metal (ditto Al). For the latter, see also Metalloid#Aluminium. The elements Cu, Ag and Au are transition metals, and are included here in cognizance of the main-group chemistry of their univalent compounds; general tendency to form covalent compounds; and amphoteric oxides. Phillips and Williams (1966, pp. 4–5), for example, categorize Cu, Ag and Au as transition metals as well as B-metals. Lastly, I've counted Lr as being partly a poor metal on the basis of its predicted electronic structure of [Rn] 7s2 5f147p1 rather than [Rn]7s25f146d1.
We can discuss whether the Group 12 metals ought to instead be counted as transition metals. As I understand it, they aren't much chop physically in comparison to the transition metals proper, and chemically they're overwhelmingly not transition metals.
Core metals. No accepted short-hand term exists for the well-documented notion of a set of 'garden variety' nonmetals, between the metalloids and the noble gases. Accordingly, I suggest the descriptive title/phrase 'core metals' for this category, consistent with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms.
Group 3 membership. After thirty years, Jensen's argument (1982) for the placement of Lu and Lr in Group 3 still stands, and is better, in terms of its eloquence, than anything else on offer.
Metal-nonmetal line. I've positioned this above the centre of the metalloid category box rather than between the poor metals box and the metalloids box. I'm still in two minds as to which way would be better.
References
Sandbh ( talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Leave as is with halogens out. I don't want a big debate (already developed). Will try to say once and never revise the words.
Also, a funny thing that one of Berkeley reports I've seen uses our current scheme. We'll run them outdated if anything changes :-)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This is where we are up to, as I see it:
What do others say? Sandbh ( talk) 13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A simple upgrade would be to:
(1) change 'post-transition metals' to 'poor metals';
(2) change the colour coding of astatine to that of a metalloid;
(3) change the 'halogen' category to a 'highly active nonmetals' category;
(4) change the colour coding of nitrogen and oxygen to that of highly active nonmetals (in light of their high Pauling electronegativity values); and
(5) change the 'other nonmetals' category to 'moderately active nonmetals'.
Such an upgrade would:
I think an argument could be made that iodine is not quite in the same league as the other active nonmetals when it comes to EN and, for example, oxidizing power, but would be happy enough for now with the highly active nonmetals being shown as N, O and the remaining (nonmetal) halogens. Sandbh ( talk) 08:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Double sharp, thank you. I've been thinking about this for a while and was just about to post something when I saw your comments, just above. DePiep was right when he said, "I know it [element categorization] is old & tough, but isn't solving that what we are here for?." I'll post what I was going to say and then respond to your comments.
Here's a table showing the proposed element categories:
The colour scheme is the standard one. The halogens aren't shown with a separate colour, on account of the (very good) reason given by R8R Gtrs.
The distinction between highly active and moderately active nonmetals follows that of Wulfsberg (1987, pp. 159–161). He groups the nonmetals into two categories, based on their electronegativity value. Nonmetals having an electronegativity of > 2.8 he calls very electronegative nonmetals (= N, O, F, Cl, Br); the rest, including iodine, he calls electronegative nonmetals. I've used 'active' instead of 'electronegative' as the main adjective, in order to be consistent with the categorization of noble gases as 'noble' or 'inactive' nonmetals.
In chemistry terms, the two categories of highly active and moderately active nonmetals are congruent with HSAB theory: highly active nonmetals are hard or borderline bases; the remaining moderately active nonmetals (including H– and I–) are soft bases.
Response to your comments (Rant warning: not aimed at you, just a general one). The term 'Other nonmetals' is "malarky". It means nothing. It's a "garbage can" term, for the leftovers, when nothing better comes to mind. It has almost zero information content. The first time I saw 'Other nonmetals' was in Wikipedia. Having not seen the term before, I remember thinking WTF are other nonmetals? Metalloids: check! Halogens: check! Noble gases: check! But WTF are other nonmetals? Sure, I knew the individual elements but had no idea what the common thread was that caused them to be called other nonmetals. The 'other' in 'other metals' conveyed no sense of meaning. OTOH, the meaning of highly/moderately active nonmetals would be significantly more familiar to most readers, including chemistry, science, and related professionals (IMO). Whereas there is (almost) no chemistry behind 'other metals', no immediately obvious sense of meaning, and no value or information add. It's an awful term that we should seek to consign to the dustbin of history, given the existence of much better terminology, in terms of (1) precedent in the literature; (2) grounding in chemistry; (3) meaning; (4) value add; and (5) internal consistency (per R8R Gtrs' insightful observation). That concludes today's rant.
Sandbh ( talk) 15:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
So, after over a month of discussion, shouldn't we ask the members who haven't participated in this discussion what they think the outcome should be, similarly to what happened with our vote for a flagship article (which was decided to be hydrogen)? Double sharp ( talk) 12:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
My proposal (close to R8R's):
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(BTW, don't delete Template:Element color/Halogens after it becomes unused. That would break almost every old revision of a periodic table.)
Of course, H is not really a typical nonmetal. But then, what do we do with it?
(P.S. Cn is actually only known to be a metal, and not a transition metal, as R8R Gtrs states. However, we can't really use any other colouring than "transition metal".) Double sharp ( talk) 05:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
how about reactive non-metals (i.e. not inert) instead of typical? Nergaal ( talk) 14:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
==== random break ====
end of ==== random break ====
Yes, I'm not really not in favor of cutting nonmetals in two (did offer invitations instead). I think the usage of the term shown is more like that of a useful phrase than a strict scientific term (doubt it that there are established definitions of "moderately active nonmetals"), this configuration's also tricky.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This came to my mind: can we call that category "unspecified nonmetals" (halogens and noble gases being the specified ones of course)? In standalone use, outside of the categories, the wording "other nonmetals" is awkward indeed. The reader thinks he or she is missing something (correctly). - DePiep ( talk) 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorting out hydrogen is the key, as I see it. StringTheory11 was on the mark with his suggestion along the lines of showing hydrogen in its own non-metal sub-category. As per DePiep's approach, there is strong support for such a treatment in the literature. For example: "The chemistry of hydrogen is so unique that this element is in reality in a class by itself" (McCoy & Terry 1920, p. 562); "The chemistry of hydrogen bears little resemblance to that of any other element…" (Emsley 1971, p. 20); "Hence the chemistry of hydrogen is the only chemistry of its kind, as it were, the chemistry of an elementary particle, the proton." (Trifonov & Vlasov 1987, p. 24). Nergaal: unless I've missed something your opposition to this proposal, on the basis that hydrogen would then stand out too much, appears to lack a strong scientific basis.
If hydrogen is recognized as a nonmetal in its own subcategory, the rest of the categorization puzzle more or less falls into a better place. Major categories would be Metals, Nonmetals, and Unknown chemical properties. Subcategories would be (current) alkali metals through transition metals, plus poor metals; then metalloids, hydrogen, typical nonmetals, and noble gases. Having thought about this some more I'd also recommend that the shared borderline between the metals category box and the nonmetals category box be positioned over the middle of the metalloid subcategory box (in the same manner as is shown in the eight category table), rather than the current practice of showing metalloids as a major category.
YBG, re your vision of a periodic table showing both categories and groups: sign me up.
Sandbh ( talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've deliberately used a soft colour here for H, so that it doesn't stand out too much, but this colour is in no way finalized and is open to suggestions. Double sharp ( talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hydrogen is more special than other elements because its chemical behavior is distinctly odd—much more so than any other element. Two results then come to mind. The first is that hydrogen doesn't have any nonmetal or metal peers (unlike helium -> noble gases; carbon -> typical nonmetals; and lead -> poor metals). The second is that hydrogen doesn't map well to any periodic table group—witness over 100 years of arguments as to which group hydrogen should belong to (including e.g. 1, 14, 17, no group, its own group or multiple groups), and
Mellor's description of hydrogen as a 'rogue' element.
In terms of its chemical behavior, hydrogen:
This is very strange behavior for a nonmetal. Even when behaving more conventionally as a non-metal, in the form of a hydride ion, the resulting compounds are intrinsically unstable since the hydrogen atom, with its single proton, is unable to sufficiently control two valence electrons.
Hydrogen doesn't satisfy any descriptive criterion or set of criteria attempting to define a metal that I'm aware of. It's clearly a non-metal in that sense. But neither is its chemistry—which is the chemistry of the proton rather than the chemistry of an element—typical (so to speak) of typical non-metals.
Sandbh (
talk) 11:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Metal groups |
Metaloid |
Nonmetal | Unknown chemical properties | |||||||
Alkali metal |
Alkali earth metal |
Lanthanide |
Actinide |
Transition metal |
Post-transition metal |
Other nonmetals |
Halogen |
Noble gas |
Nergaal was right when he said, 'how about reactive non-metals (i.e. not inert) instead of typical? Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)'. Sure, hydrogen is comparatively unreactive at room temperature and nitrogen is nearly inert but both are way more reactive elements—in general—than the noble gases, as are the rest of the non-noble nonmetals. Using reactive nonmetals instead of typical nonmetals makes the hydrogen problem go away. And whereas I can't find much specific usage in the literature of other nonmetals there are many more mentions I can find of reactive nonmetals or variations thereof (e.g. less reactive, reactive, more reactive, highly reactive, most reactive etc). So, it's a big metalloid vote from me to replace other nonmetals with reactive nonmetals.
The only question then remaining would be whether to distinguish between highly reactive nonmetals (O?, F, Cl, Br?) and the rest of the (merely) reactive nonmetals. The halogens may not have their own color anymore but there may still be some value in highlighting the highly reactive nonmetals, given this terminology is often associated with the elements in the vicinity of the top right hand corner of the periodic kingdom.
Sandbh (
talk) 23:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sandbh ( talk) 04:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Sandbh ( talk) 08:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) What about dividing nonmetals into (1) Hydrogen (2) Solid nonmetals and (3) noble gases? YBG ( talk) 05:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking through the literature I find that O, F, Cl, Br are the only nonmetals that are more or less consistently referred to as being 'highly reactive', or the like. In contrast, I can't get a clear highly reactive bead on any of the rest of the nonmetals:
On the above basis, it seems to me that a reasonable argument can be made for distinguishing between three categories of nonmetals:
Reactive nonmetals (7): H, C, N, P, S, Se, I
Highly reactive nonmetals (4): O, F, Cl, Br
Noble gases (6): He, Ne, Ar. Kr, Xe, Rn
The benefits of such a taxonomy, as I see it, are: It gets rid of the execrable term 'Other nonmetals'. It eliminates any difficulties with hydrogen. It preserves the current three-fold categorization of the nonmetals: less reactive | more reactive | nonreactive. It is grounded in the literature. It doesn't disturb the current colour scheme.
Sandbh (
talk) 07:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's what I mean:
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||||||||||
|
Sandbh ( talk) 09:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the "halogens" category is going to disappear no matter what proposal we adopt, what category (predicted, of course) should we put elements 117, 167, and 217 into in {{ Compact extended periodic table}}? Would 118, 168, and 218 be reasonably able to be predicted as being noble gases? Double sharp ( talk) 15:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 139 | 140 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)
Double sharp (
talk) 14:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Hey, I just realized that a switch to Pyykkö means we need to go alter heavier homologs from like Upo to Uhn in articles like hassium (see infobox). Can someone give it a try?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Done {{ Compact extended periodic table}} now stops at 172 and uses the Pyykkö model. I changed the systematic names to simple atomic numbers: although using the systematic symbols is more consistent with the non-extended table, it's easier for the reader if the number is used, since the reader might not know what the systematic symbols mean. Double sharp ( talk) 06:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for the paper! Here's what I can conclude after reading this:
118 will be a very bad noble gas. Some scientific papers require reading between the lines to correctly interpret them when it jumps from calculations to conclusions. In our case, they still do not refuse to call it a noble gas, but if they called it so no more, it would sound like a sensation back then probably. At least, this would be more interesting to write about. They do mention the reduction of this nobility character, but this shows us they do not think it to be a regular metal. At least not sure in that. The "normal compounds" is a vague term -- is radon difluoride a normal compound? If the answer is yes (which I would pick), then it's not a point-- we still call radon noble. Anyway, such a move (recoloring 118) would be quite bold and thus require more backup proof. Note also it's a part of the FT "Noble gases."
171 can be an actual metalloid. My first thought after reading the article was even "It's a nonmetal!", but it's probably not the case. I'll try to explain how this went on, and you try to correct me, ok? So, the p electrons split into two parts, the faster the higher Z is. See graph. (These effects alter chem of the elements by 10% and 18-33%, respectively, while the figure for iodine is 1%, and for bromine, chlorine, and fluorine, this is too small to consider, much like we don't consider quantum stuff for macroscopic objects, which is a very very very close approximation, or mass loss during a chemical reaction). The 9p(1/2) electrons are too stabilized and the 8p(3/2) are too destabilized, so they actually very close in energy, and form a p shell of six electrons, which behaves like a single one (despite its contents!). Simply extrapolating that data, we could say that the p energy level is not going to be too close to zero, so it would take a strong oxidizer to get high oxidation states. And also the -1 state seems to be more likely than for 117, both by imagination and according to calculations. 172 is reasonable to stay in its color as well.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 13:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Also, after reading the text, I realized that the two schemes in this section is exactly the same, interpreted differently. I like the first one more, and if anyone thinks so not, I can write my arguments.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 13:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Fricke paper seems to state that 157 will be in group 3, 158 will be in group 4, etc., and that 164 will really be a group 10 element, despite putting them in groups 5–12 in the periodic table figure given. Double sharp ( talk) 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
However, Haire states that the 9s and 9p1/2 states will be readily available for hybridization, so the fact that 8s are no longer valence electrons might not actually change much. Double sharp ( talk) 05:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that what is being proposed is three major categories of elements, looking like this(?):
Sandbh ( talk) 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
In our multi-category periodic table do we categorise elements on the basis of their most thermodynamically stable states at ambient conditions or their most common form? My question relates to P. Black P is the most stable allotrope and is relatively inert; red P is far more common and relatively stable; white P is the commonest allotrope of all but is unstable. I gather the 'standard state' of P is regarded as being white P on the basis of its ease of preparation, industrial importance and commonality, despite its extreme instability. This approach has never seemed to me to represent good science—provides no basis for valid comparison. Sandbh ( talk)
Based on all of the lengthy discussion so far, including about O and P, how does the following scheme look(?):
Highly reactive nonmetals are those that are either caustic or corrosive, or both. Sandbh ( talk) 10:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Becausee At is a halogen but not a nonmetal (it's a metalloid), and the problem gets worse for 117. On the other end of the periodic table (group 1 and 2), no matter how far down you go on the periodic table, the elements are still metals. Double sharp ( talk) 03:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's a summary of the proposals for renaming and/or subdividing the non-noble nonmetals:
# | 1st subcategory | 2nd subcategory | Categorization basis |
1 | Core: H, C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, Se, Br, I | The essential part of a thing | |
2 | Hydrogen: H | Typical: C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, Se, Br, I | H is not a typical nonmetal |
3 | Moderately active: H, C, P, S, Se, I | Active: N, O, F, Cl, Br | Electronegativity; HSAB principle |
4 | Unspecified: H, C, N, O, P, S, Se | Halogens: F, Cl, Br, I | Awkwardness of "Other nonmetals" category |
5 | Reactive: H, C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, Se, Br, I | Reactive nometals are reactive compared to noble gases | |
6 | Reactive: H, C, N, P, S, Se, I | Highly reactive: O, F, Cl, Br | Consistent literature descriptions of "highly reactive" nonmetals as being highly reactive |
7 | Reactive H, C, N, O, P, S, Se | Corrosive: F, Cl, Br, I | Corrosive characteristics, as described in literature (overlooked O) |
8 | Reactive: H, C, N, S, Se | Highly reactive: O, F, P, Cl, Br, I | Corrosive or caustic characteristics, as described in literature |
Of these proposals, #6 was comparably well-received. I like it because there are no issues with allotropes (e.g. P); it preserves the top right hand corner feel for the most reactive nonmetals; it maintains two categories of non-noble nonmetals; it results in a nice progression of subcategories down the halogens; and it looks OK visually (bright yellow colour aside).
Is there any further support for this proposal? Sandbh ( talk) 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Here. Sandbh ( talk) 21:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this contribution is to provide a quantitative basis for distinguishing between reactive and highly reactive nonmetals. To do this, the following table gives the properties of all the non-noble nonmetals, across nine properties associated with reactivity:
Nonmetal | Electron affinity kJ/mol |
Electro- negativity |
Enthalpy of dis- sociation kJ/mol |
Standard reduction potential V |
Caustic? | Corrosive? | Pyro- phoric? |
HSAB | Forms noble gas com- pounds? |
Reactivity boxes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | 334 | 3.98 | 159 | 2.87 | 1 | 1 | 0 | H | Y | 8 |
Cl | 355 | 3.16 | 242 | 1.36 | 1 | 1 | 0 | H/B | P | 7.25 |
Br | 331 | 2.96 | 193 | 1.07 | 1 | 1 | 0 | B/S | N | 6.25 |
O | 147 | 3.44 | 498 | 1.23 | 0 | 1 | 0 | H | Y | 5 |
I | 301 | 2.66 | 151 | 0.54 | 1 | 1 | 0 | S | N | 4 |
S | 207 | 2.58 | 266 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | S | N | 2 |
Se | 201 | 2.55 | 332 | –0.40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | S | N | 2 |
P | 78 | 2.19 | 198 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 1 | S | N | 2 |
N | 0 | 3.04 | 945 | 0.27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | B | N | 1.5 |
H | 79 | 2.20 | 436 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | H | N | 1 |
C | 128 | 2.55 | 346 | 0.13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | S | N | 0 |
Average | 196 | 2.85 | 342 | 0.66 |
Note: Caustic = destructive of organic tissue.
If a particular property is quantitative, the last row gives the average value of the listed nonmetals.
I've then used yellow shading to indicate which nonmetals have an above average value for that property, and light grey shading for those that have a below average value (the other way 'round in the case of enthalpy of dissociation). Aqua shading denotes an intermediate value. If a property is binary (e.g. Caustic?) then the distinction between above average and below average is self-explanatory. In the case of HSAB rating I've assigned a value of 1 to 'hard' (H); a value of 0.5 to borderline (B); and a value of 0 to 'soft' (S). If a nonmetal is sometimes listed as more than one HSAB category, I've assigned it the average of the applicable values. In the Forms noble gas compounds? column, Cl has a value of P for possibly since that is the way I read the literature on this question.
The last column shows how many 'above average' property boxes a particular nonmetal has ticked. Since 9 is the greatest number of property boxes that can be ticked it follows that > 4.5 boxes is above average and < 4.5 is below average.
In case anybody is wondering, and as an example, enthalpy of dissociation (or element bond strength) is associated with reactivity: 'The high dissociation enthalpy of the O2 molecule, 498 kJ/mol, is the reason that molecular O. is relatively unreactive and its reactions usually require thermal or photochemical activation.' (Eagleson 1994, p. 768)
On the basis of the above table, nonmetals of above average or high reactivity are F, Cl, Br and O, an outcome that is consistent with the literature.
Overall, there isn't much involved with this approach. It would be expected that any particular nonmetal with an above average number of properties that have above average values for properties associated with reactivty, would have above average or high overall reactivity. I didn't know what the outcome of this approach would be when I started and I didn't really care, because the values would fall where they fell, but I did think that F and Cl would be up there.
Yes, I'm still proposing we distinguish between reactive and highly reactive nonmetals since this is a well established periodic trend in descriptive chemistry, as consistently cited in this thread. The above table provides a non-subjective way of distinguishing between the two categories, by drawing on known values of relevant properties and sorting these into simple above or below average boxes. Sandbh ( talk) 11:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not well-versed in the WP policies, but I'm wondering how WP:OR applies in this instance. Clearly, the individual entries in the cells are not OR, but I'm not so sure about the conclusion as to where the line should be drawn. I don't feel strongly about this, but I'm just trying to think things through. And just for interest, I made the above table sortable. YBG ( talk) 05:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there any appetite for (1) replacing the alkali metal, and alkaline earth metal categories, with the single category of s-block metals; and (2) having just two categories of nonmetals: the reactive nonmetals, and the noble gases? I still advocate showing the group names on our periodic table, so the 'alkali metal' and the 'alkaline earth metal' groups would still be identifiable, just as all the other group names would be included. I also still think dividing the reactive metals into reactive and highly reactive categories is markedly more informative chemistry, but I could live with an eight category table as a better construct than what we have now. Sandbh ( talk) 11:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to briefly re-address concerns raised in this thread about splitting the nonmetals in two. Our periodic table has always split the nonmetals into two categories: other nonmetals, and halogens. This split is broadly consistent with the well-established distinction made in the literature between less reactive nonmetals and more reactive nonmetals. Now, if we get rid of the halogens category, concerns have been raised that there is no other established basis to split the nonmetals in two. To alleviate these concerns I've cited several sources referring to:
In conclusion, splitting the nonmetals into the categories of reactive nonmetals, and highly reactive metals (O, F, Cl, Br) would be consistent with, and supported by the literature. Sandbh ( talk) 09:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Subcategorise the nonmetals according to their molecular structures:
The lines of demarcation are apparent. Structure generally corresponds to metallishness: Metals generally have high coordination numbers (CNs); metalloids have intermediate CNs; and nonmetals have low CNs, culminating in the noble gases with CN = 0. There are no issues with white P v black P; both are polyatomic.
The terms 'diatomic' and 'polyatomic' are both found in the nonmetal literature: 'Figure 3.2 shows seven nonmetal elements that can exist as diatomic molecules. Atoms of a smaller number of elements can form polyatomic molecules. Two examples shown in Figure 3.2 are phosphorus, which can form P4 (read as "P-four"), and sulfur, which can form S8 (read as "S-eight")." (Miller T 1987, Chemistry: a basic introduction, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, p. 62)
We have probably all seen periodic tables that highlight the molecular structures of the non-metals (S8, O2 etc).
A similar categorisation pattern can be seen going rightwards across the standard form of the periodic table. Whereas most metals crystallise in close-packed structures with high coordination numbers (8+ to 12, or higher), the poor metals have more complex structures, with lower coordination numbers (4+ to 6+). This can be attributed to the influence of partially covalent bonding in their crystal structures, which dictates fewer nearest neighbours.
It is not a perfect categorisation. But it is simple, and interesting (in my view). Sandbh ( talk) 01:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
When I don't reply for a few days, it means, I'm taking a broader perspective. It took me a few days to realize that I'm still very doubtful about this.
Like, I started top listen to a lot of indie music much (don't care about trendiness, just like it), but that doesn't mean I would use an indie song to illustrate the music article. That kind of a close second.
Not trying to match s-block? good then (I just like it, nothing more)
"the 'established organization' of splitting the non-noble nonmetals into two categories." I really really feel this doesn't count as a good argument, but I'm not sure if I can prove it. I do understand your point, not just reject it. But I think that if a border isn't clear (since there are a few disputable ways to break 'em in two), it's not a reason to draw one. Moreover, relatively arbitrarily. Ah, I had said I would've been poor at it.
"Here's an outline of each sub-category": here's another one coming. Okay, you can tell me, but you surely won't put it into the template, and how will then the less acknowledged readers get the point apart from main allotrope structure itself?
And this, I think, is why we don't have a common opinion. I want to make it reader-friendly, as reader-friendly as possible, and you want to organize it at your best, and you're good at that. As a guy who could explain you the theory behind this di-/polyatomism, I find it very good (that's how you got the close second, yeah, a good explanation!). As an average reader who hadn't taken in this discussion, I would say, wtf? so num of atoms matters now? why not Hungarian names?
My belief is: If we were writing a book, that, given an appropriate explanation is also there, would be fine and good. A book is not designed for looking through, so this wtfs wouldn't be a problem, as a reader would stay on anyway and we could explain him the point. (The inner me is not opposed to breaking them in two in general, when a reader has a few mins to get the point) Wikipedia is, though, designed for looking though, and even if not, is used for it. This means we have to be as laconic as possible. That's what I don't like about it. A reader won't be thinking. Won't be able to get the point w/o chem education.
Summarizing: He'll be surprised about this previously unseen categorization. Or wtfing. Or a combination. Don't want any of three.
(P.S. If we already have boundary problems, it doesn't mean we should add new. Especially when this can be avoided.)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 20:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I think my option 10 sandbox draft may be ready, barring any fine-tuning edits. The draft covers and explains, at least to my initial satisfaction, the similarities and differences within and across each of the proposed categories of polyatomic, diatomic and monatomic nonmetal. Would the next step be to call for a vote on option 10? Is there any protocol I need to observe in conducting such a vote? I presume that I should give a preamble setting out the background to the vote; that votes are given as Support or Oppose; and that the majority carries the day? Sandbh ( talk) 11:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Periodic table (nonmetals variant)}}
.
Double sharp (
talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
@Sandbh: You are starting once again to convince me. :-) Support. Double sharp ( talk) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the only other plausible candidate for being called a metalloid, and I would be interested in hearing what you (Sandbh) think about Se. Double sharp ( talk) 13:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
What should we colour it as? (See Talk:Flerovium.) Double sharp ( talk) 14:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone looking here, BTW? (This post has two objectives in mind: firstly to "bump" the whole section so it won't get archived for a while longer, and secondly because saying this seemed to make discussion come in the "Predictions" subsection, so I think I should try it again to tie up this particular loose end.) Double sharp ( talk) 14:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
When we get our new scheme to go live, we need to:
Double sharp ( talk) 09:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
We've been discussing the categories of our periodic table since June last year—nearly 11 months now. The thread originated with sorting out the categorisation of Po (now agreed to be better as a metal) and At (now agreed to be better as a metalloid). It then flowed into what to do about the halogen category, given the change in category of At, and if we could come up with something more useful than the nondescript 'other nonmetal' category.
After working through numerous suggestions, YBG proposed that any new categorisation scheme be clear ('The criterion for division should be easily explained'); unambiguous ('It should be relatively obvious which category each element fits into'); and meaningful ('The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing. There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopaedia article.').
Option 10 divides the nonmetals into the three categories of polyatomic nonmetal (C, P, S, Se); diatomic nonmetal (H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I); and noble gas (all of which are monatomic). A fully sourced draft rewrite of the nonmetal article, using these proposed categories, can be found here. A draft periodic table template, which includes the two proposed (new) nonmetal categories, can be found at {{ periodic table (nonmetals variant)}}. The template includes group names so that the halogens, for example, can (still) be identified. Option 10, in my view, meets all three of YBG's criteria quite well. If it gets up it will unclog the astatine log jam and result in our first ever fully categorised periodic table continuum.
Please vote.
Discussion on option 10 (concluded)
|
---|
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it. |
I'm starting this thread here in order to keep the archive clock ticking on the massive parent thread. There are four votes in support of this option, which was to divide the nonmetals (aside from the noble gases) into polyatomic and diatomic subcategories, and to show astatine as a metalloid: myself, DePiep, YBG and Double sharp. A couple of recently discovered references have reminded me to seek to progress option 10. The first ref was Karkhanavala (1973. p. 61) who, in writing about heats of atomization, commented in part that, '…the differences are mainly in the p-block elements of the p3 to p5 configurations which form the di- and poly-atomic molecules.' There is nothing new in this author's observation. I was just struck by the reference to diatomic and polyatomic molecules in groups 13–17, in one sentence. The second reference was Brady and Senese (2009, pp. 858–63) who discuss, at some length, why the diatomic nonmetals form diatomic molecules (due to their electronic configuration, or small size which facilitates pi bonds) and why the remaining nonmetals, not counting the noble gases, form more complex structures (electronic configuration, or larger size: not so good at pi bonds; prefer sigma bonds). I don’t recall seeing such a well illustrated and relatively detailed explanation in any other chemistry textbook. Anyway, here are my intended and proposed actions, and questions as to the way ahead.
Comments welcome. Sandbh ( talk) 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
While I agree with the idea of more widely advertising the vote, the last time we tried that with WP Chemistry, it went extremely well indeed (not). Double sharp ( talk) 16:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Megathanks to Sandbh for summarizing the megadiscussion. WP:WikiThanks to DePiep for thinking through what would need to change. And thank you both (and Double sharp) for your patience and willingness to take my suggestions. I have glanced through the sandbox PT, and it looks like it is ready for prime time. YBG ( talk) 06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) In answer to the question above, I do think it would be good to advertise this discussion and the vote broadly, mostly because the discussion has been between a relatively small number of people. However, if invitations have been posted elsewhere without much response, then I'd say that is good enough. Any new advertising should clearly point to the megadiscussion summary and specifically request that interested parties vote in the appropriate place. It would be good to summarize the sorts of outreach that have been done to add credence to the relatively small number of votes. (By the way, I only count three (not four) formal votes that Support the change -- YBG, Sandbh, and DePiep.) YBG ( talk) 06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Megadiscussion summaryThis is a summary of the parent thread discussion, as to the pros and cons of option 10. The discussion originated with sorting out the categorisation of polonium (now agreed to be better shown as a metal) and astatine (now agreed to be better shown as a metalloid). It then flowed into what to do about the halogen category, given the change in category of astatine, and if we could come up with something more useful than the nondescript 'other nonmetal' category. We considered at least ten options: Along the way concerns and observations were presented about:
YBG subsequently proposed that any new categorisation scheme be (a) clear—'The criterion for division should be easily explained'; (b) unambiguous—'It should be relatively obvious which category each element fits into'; and (c) meaningful—'The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing. There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopaedia article.' Option 10 divides the nonmetals into the three categories of polyatomic nonmetal (C, P, S, Se); diatomic nonmetal (H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I); and noble gas (all of which are monatomic). A fully sourced draft rewrite of the nonmetal article, using these proposed categories, can be found here. A draft periodic table template, which includes the two proposed (new) nonmetal categories, can be found at {{ periodic table (nonmetals variant)/sandbox}}. The template includes group names so that the halogens, for example, can (still) be identified. Option 10's pros (e.g. meets YBG's criteria; consistent with, and anchored in, fundamental atomic and electronic properties discussed in the literature) are thought to outweigh any concerns (e.g. 5 OR v 13 literature; 6 v 16 two subcategories; 17 boundaries v 14 no perfection; 19 v YBG's criteria). The previous sentence is a high-level summary and will not necessarily cover all aspects and nuances of this massive discussion. Sandbh ( talk) 06:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC) HAHAHAHA just checked and apparently in mid-March the massive parent thread already had 189 replies (is this a record?) Double sharp ( talk) 17:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, does this discussion also sets in stone things we agreed on earlier (up the page)? Like group 12 being TM for practical purposes and such?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 10:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this the place where you intended to have the talk? If not, olease copy wherever it belongs to. I'll manage to track :)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 04:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Agree with most of the above, except the nonmetal page. (Please don't take it as a personal attack.) I don't think Sandbh's draft is good enough. I mean, have a look at the metal page. It talks about metals and what makes them metals in first place. It is not concerned with how one can classify them, it is a secondary question for the "metal" topic. Really, breaking the metals set into TMs, alkali metals, etc. is a classification thing. That is why there are some groupings given there ( Metal#Categories), often overlapping, and the discussion of those doesn't have a leading role there. It's the way it should be. Analogously it is for the nonmetals. But in the draft, most of description is in the categories part, cut in three. Again, compare with metal. Also, about 117. Can anyone justify labeling it as whatever (predicted) per RSes? (Maybe there are such sources, just want to be sure)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
For the new category scheme, we also need a general disambiguation term (
WP:DAB). "Option 10" is just for this talk process really. It needs to be international. Because: |
If and when option 10 is accepted here at en: WT:ELEM, we want to implement the consequences in en:wp. The decision (consensus) on option 10 is science & source based; the implementation from there is en:wiki-based. This subsection only pertains to the wiki-implementation: just new bg-colors and wikilinks (two each). Other talk, especially including any new categorisation of elements, is science so is not here.
Evolved discussions and listings now concluded
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- DePiep ( talk) 23:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 13:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
We need colors for
Color decisions:
- DePiep ( talk) 17:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Standard {{ Periodic table legend}}s: {{Periodic table legend|theme1=Category-polyatomic|predicted1=no}}
Compact: {{Periodic table legend|theme1=Category-polyatomic compact|predicted1=no}} Janet left step: {{Periodic table legend|theme1=Janet category compact/sandbox}}
Do we need colors for predicted polyatomic nonmetals and predicted diatomic nonmetals? Are there any such elements? - DePiep ( talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Copy-pasted the template from above, so doesn't reflect the current wikicode, but it's a good idea of what it would look like. I didn't add the predicted colours YET for the SHEs and UHEs (the latter not shown). See next section: we'll soon have to deal with this so we can roll the new option 10 scheme out to the extended periodic table pages too.
{| class="collapsible" style="width:100%;background:#fff;font-size:88%;border: 1px solid #a2a9b1;" |- ! colspan="32" | {{tnavbar-collapsible|[[Periodic table]]|Compact periodic table}} |- | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Hydrogen|H]] | width="3.125%" colspan="30" | | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Helium|He]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Lithium|Li]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Beryllium|Be]] | colspan="24" | |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Boron|B]] |style="background-color:#a1ffc3"|[[Carbon|C]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Nitrogen|N]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Oxygen|O]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Fluorine|F]] |style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Neon|Ne]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Sodium|Na]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Magnesium|Mg]] | colspan="24" | |style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Aluminium|Al]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Silicon|Si]] |style="background-color:#a1ffc3"|[[Phosphorus|P]] |style="background-color:#a1ffc3"|[[Sulfur|S]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Chlorine|Cl]] |style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Argon|Ar]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Potassium|K]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Calcium|Ca]] | colspan="14" | |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Scandium|Sc]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Titanium|Ti]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Vanadium|V]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Chromium|Cr]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Manganese|Mn]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Iron|Fe]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Cobalt|Co]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Nickel|Ni]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Copper|Cu]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Zinc|Zn]] |style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Gallium|Ga]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Germanium|Ge]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Arsenic|As]] |style="background-color:#a1ffc3"|[[Selenium|Se]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Bromine|Br]] |style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Krypton|Kr]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Rubidium|Rb]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Strontium|Sr]] | colspan="14" | |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Yttrium|Y]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Zirconium|Zr]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Niobium|Nb]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Molybdenum|Mo]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Technetium|Tc]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Ruthenium|Ru]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rhodium|Rh]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Palladium|Pd]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Silver|Ag]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Cadmium|Cd]] |style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Indium|In]] |style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Tin|Sn]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Antimony|Sb]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Tellurium|Te]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Iodine|I]] |style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Xenon|Xe]] |- | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Caesium|Cs]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Barium|Ba]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Lanthanum |La]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Cerium|Ce]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Praseodymium|Pr]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Neodymium|Nd]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Promethium|Pm]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Samarium|Sm]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Europium|Eu]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Gadolinium|Gd]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Terbium|Tb]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Dysprosium|Dy]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Holmium|Ho]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Erbium|Er]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Thulium|Tm]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Ytterbium|Yb]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Lutetium|Lu]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Hafnium|Hf]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Tantalum|Ta]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Tungsten|W]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rhenium|Re]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Osmium|Os]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Iridium|Ir]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Platinum|Pt]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Gold|Au]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Mercury (element)|Hg]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Thallium|Tl]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Lead|Pb]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Bismuth |Bi]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Polonium|Po]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Astatine|At]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Radon|Rn]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Francium|Fr]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Radium|Ra]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Actinium|Ac]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Thorium|Th]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Protactinium|Pa]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Uranium|U]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Neptunium|Np]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Plutonium|Pu]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Americium|Am]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Curium|Cm]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Berkelium|Bk]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Californium|Cf]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Einsteinium|Es]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Fermium|Fm]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Mendelevium|Md]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Nobelium|No]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Lawrencium|Lr]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rutherfordium|Rf]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Dubnium|Db]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Seaborgium|Sg]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Bohrium|Bh]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Hassium|Hs]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Meitnerium|Mt]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Darmstadtium|Ds]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Roentgenium|Rg]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Copernicium|Cn]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Ununtrium|Uut]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Flerovium|Fl]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Ununpentium|Uup]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Livermorium|Lv]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Ununseptium|Uus]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Ununoctium|Uuo]] |- | colspan="32" | {| border="1" rules="all" style="border-collapse:collapse;" | style="background-color:#ff6666" width="9%"|[[Alkali metal]] | style="background-color:#ffdead" width="9%"|[[Alkaline earth metal]] | style="background-color:#ffbfff" width="9%"|[[Lanthanide]] | style="background-color:#ff99cc" width="9%"|[[Actinide]] | style="background-color:#ffc0c0" width="9%"|[[Transition metal]] | style="background-color:#cccccc" width="9%"|[[Poor metal]] | style="background-color:#cccc99" width="9%"|[[Metalloid]] | style="background-color:#a1ffc3" width="9%"|[[Polyatomic nonmetal]] | style="background-color:#eaffa1" width="9%"|[[Diatomic nonmetal]] | style="background-color:#c0ffff" width="9%"|[[Noble gas]] | style="background-color:#e8e8e8" width="10%"|Unknown chemical properties |} |- ! colspan="32" | {| border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" | style="background-color:#c9c9ff" |'''[[Periodic table (large version)|Large version]]''' |} |} Double sharp ( talk) 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC) |
Below is a list of todo's for implementation. Please maintain as a list; #discuss way below. - DePiep ( talk) 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Decisions made by Option 10, 17 August 2013:
Polyatomic nonmetal #a1ffc3 |
Diatomic nonmetal #e7ff8f |
Polyatomic nonmetal (predicted) #d0ffe1 |
Diatomic nonmetal (predicted) #f2ffc2 |
(polyatomic)
" -- As of August 15, 2013 22:00 UTC.The "once accepted, what to do" thing. I believe the to-be-accepted scheme, option 10 or if even it were whatever else, does not need to be justified in the nonmetal article. Again, look at metal (a reasonably good article, though not a GA). It does not justify how we break them in the scheme. It just describes metals. The nonmetal article could use the same.
tl;dr Regardless if the article nonmetal will be changed or not, the other changes can go live.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 04:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Trouble ahead, our earlier success bites back. See for example File:Electron shell 001 Hydrogen - no label.svg, used in the infobox. Option 10 says it should turn yellow (diatomic nonmetal). But these images are used in dozens of wikis, all using the old categories (so H should stay green for their "other nonmetal" usage, like in ca:S'està editant Plantilla:Hidrogen). Our earlier success (the element infobox+categorisation) has spread so widely, we cannot edit commons any more :-). - DePiep ( talk) 13:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
|electron shell image=Electron shell 001 Hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal) - no label.svg
This template needs its own attention. Question: do we color "nonmetal", or do we separate "diatomic", "polyatomic"? The same question exists today, pre-decision (nonmetal or separate "halogen", "other nonmetal"?). Confusing is, until today, that the green color "nonmetal" equals "other nonmetal" (btw, same as in Template:infobox hydrogen today)
I am developing the
todo edits page, for when
option 10 is decided. A great job if you can get it, and a nice one with the right fellows around here. Still, I'd like to have a checking eye. Could anyone (everyone) take a look at that page, and try your favorite page (template, image, ...)? Do you get the change? Late disappointments and errors are worse, really worse.
Here is an anecdote. I did preparation edits in /sandboxes, using find-&-replace on 'Halogen' -> 'diatomic metal'. Great not? Later on I found that [[Halogen|group 17]]
should stay halogen. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There were two replies, one concise and one more elaborate. The concise one was from Eric Scerri, who has been a long-standing member of the list: 'I am happy to support your proposed Wiki reform as to how to treat non-metals.' The elaborate comment, together with my original post and subsequent reply, went as follows.
>Wikipedia is proposing to change its periodic table nonmetal categories. Currently these are:
>Other nonmetals : H, C, N, O, P. S, Se
>Halogens: F, Cl, Br, I, At
>Noble gases: He, Ne etc
>
>See, for example <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Periodic_table>
>
>The proposed subcategories are:
>
>Diatomic nonmetals: H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I
>Polyatomic nonmetals: C, P, S, Se
>Noble gases: no change
>
>See <
/info/en/?search=Template:Periodic_table_%28nonmetals_variant%29/sandbox>
>
>Note, in particular, that the halogens are retained (as a group, rather than as a nonmetal subcategory).
>
>Reasons for the proposed change are (a) dissatisfaction with the blandness, low information content, and left-over nature of the term ‘other nonmetals’; and (b) to accommodate astatine being shown as a metalloid.
>
>The proposed division into polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals is thought to be clear (easily explained), unambiguous (easily discerned) and meaningful (sufficient similarities and differences within and between each subcategory). A draft rewrite of the nonmetal article, using these proposed categories, can be found here:
/info/en/?search=User:Sandbh/sandbox
>
>Comments are welcome and can be posted here or on Wikipedia, at
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements See item 12, ‘Implementing option 10.’ Further, item 12.1 'Megadiscussion summary' gives a précis of the other nine options that were considered, and concerns and observations raised along the way. You may also like to vote in support of (Support) or opposition to (Oppose) this proposal: see item 1.7, 'Vote: Proposal to implement option 10'. You do not need a Wikipedia account to post comments to Wikipedia or to lodge a vote; however your IP address will show on the applicable Wikipedia page, if you do. (There are quite a few "IP editors" as they are called, who do just that rather than create a Wikipedia account.)
>
>Declaration: I am a member of the Wikipedia 'Elements' Project, in whose talk page the above proposal (which I put forward) has been progressed.
a) is good, and makes the proposed change worthwhile.
I'm not too excited about the category of polyatomic nonmetal, but that doesn't matter much.
>>On behalf of the Wikipedia 'Elements' Project, many thanks for your response.
General comments...
The categorization is soft, as you note. I think it would be good to be upfront with that -- right at the start of the intro. The idea of metals and nonmetals is useful -- and it is clear at the edges. The more you go on, the less clear it becomes. The page spends a lot of time dealing with that, justifying or explaining this or that, and noting special cases. By being upfront that the whole scheme is somewhat arbitrary, i think it would make the whole page easier.
>>Sound advice; will see what I can do.
The Categories section starts with
"Nonmetals have structures in which each atom usually forms (8 - N) bonds
with (8 - N) nearest neighbours, where N is the applicable group number."
First, that leads to the prediction that halogens form -9 bonds. :-) (There were advantages of the old system for numbering groups.)
>>Headslap! Still stuck in the boomer era :)
Rather than "fix" the formula, I think it might be better to use the PT directly. Elements in the right hand group form zero bonds, elements in the group one in "usually" form 1 bond (in the same sense you meant it above.) Less formula, more PT. (I'm assuming you don't want to get in to valence electrons at this point.)
>>I see that the 8-N rule is sometimes regarded as not applying to metals given their much higher coordination numbers, or that it has sometimes been expressed as the 18-N rule, or that N is sometimes instead taken as the number of outer electrons. All this points to a need to refine the wording of this section, as you observed.
Second, that intro statement to that section gives equal importance to two ideas: number of bonds and number of neighbors. I don't think they are of equal importance at all. Bond number is fundamental -- and comes from the PT. Neighbor number is complicated. I gave a double take when you talked about C having three neighbors, and worried about N only having one. Yes, graphite may be the standard state of C, but as you note that is somewhat arbitrary. Associating three as a key number for C seems odd, even confusing. (And it's not exactly true, even for graphite. There is interaction between C in different planes.)
>>I'll look at the wording here. The standard state is certainly arbitrary when it comes to (white) P, this being the most unstable and reactive form whereas all the other standard states of the elements, including graphite, are in their most thermodynamically stable forms at ambient conditions. Mention of the peculiar structure of graphite could be elaborated to better explain how each atom completes its octet e.g., 'Graphite's honeycomb network violates the 8-N rule (carbon is three-bonded), but pi-bonding satisfies the octet rule.'
The topic is supposed to be something fundamental about the PT. Discussing the normal bonding number (from the group number) is good. Neighbor number is complicated, requiring introducing the more complex ideas of multiple bonds -- which really have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
>>From my reading of the literature, the three concepts of normal bonding number, neighbour number, and multiple bonds are more or less interrelated. This can be seen in the left-right reduction across the PT in numbers of nearest neighbours in elemental structures, and in declining normal bonding numbers amongst the structures of the metalloids and nonmetals. Same thing happens going down the p-block e.g. O diatomic, S, Se, and Te polyatomic, and Po metallic (six neighbours). Chemistry text books usually discuss neighbour numbers when describing the p-block groups, starting with the lightest member of each group and then going down the group. They also usually mention the ability of N and O, and sometimes the ability of C, to "dodge" the 8-N rule on account of the relatively small size of their atoms faciliating pi bonding. As I understand it, these L-R and top-down patterns, are, or are related to, fundamental periodic trends arising out of the interaction of atomic and electronic properties. So I'd be hesitant to exclude discussion of neighbour numbers and multiple bonds, whilst fully acknowledging there is room to better explain these things and their relevance.
>>thanks again for all your comments
End of comments and my reply. Sandbh ( talk) 11:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Anybody had a look at this book yet? In chapter 10 'From missing elements to synthetic elements' Scerri discusses the impact of relativistic effects on elements 104 onwards. He notes that such effects peak in period 6 at gold---dubbed the 'gold maximum phenomenon' by Pyykkö. In period 7 he says that calculations by others (Schwerdtfeger & Seth 1998) have shown that the maximum relativistic effect should take place at element 112 (and drop away 'sharply' thereafter). He goes on to write that E112 and E114, contrary to initial predictions and experiments, behave more or less as expected for their place in the period table (E112 per Zn, Cd, Hg; E114 as eka-lead), and that, (again) contrary to earlier speculation, all of this would suggest that the chemistry of E115+ should behave as expected for their periodic table positions. He concludes this chapter by saying, 'This seems to be further testament to the underyling fundamental nature of the periodic law, which continues to stand firm against the threats from quantum mechanics and relativity combined together.' Sandbh ( talk) 01:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
O Sandbh, hast thou finished thy reading of the other Fricke paper with the HSAB principles that I gavest thou the link to? For I would fain be hearing thy comments once again and would rather not overburden the parent massively bloated 2/3-page-taking-up thread. (Feel free to continue reading from there.) Double sharp ( talk) 07:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DePiep, please help me beautify the colours. :-) Double sharp ( talk) 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I should really check 171's properties again, as it's very debatable what its structure is like! Double sharp ( talk) 05:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to reform the periodic table, may I ask people here to consider removing the tons of categories we already have? Absolutely all the periodic tables I've seen only give one category for metals, and I see no reason to have 6, or 7 categories for them. Here are my proposals; feel free to comment:
Here is how it would look like. Nergaal ( talk) 17:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@Nergaal, you colour 171 as a metalloid here, I wonder why? (I'm also not very sure about it?) Double sharp ( talk) 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This post was prompted by Nergaal's request for less categories. It seems to me that the principles by which we categorise the elements are as follows. 1. Start with the basic categories of metals, metalloids, and nonmetals. 2. Subcategorise thereafter to show (a) gradations in metallic character; or (b) other natural distinctions. 3. Aim to achieve an engaging taxonomy, one that is neither excessively fine-grained nor parsimonious.
I think this is why we divide the s-block metals, the inner transition metals, and the non-noble nonmetals into two subcategories apiece. Certainly, before I became an editor, I was captivated by the Wikipedia categorisation scheme, having never seen anything quite as engaging, as far as I can recall, in older sources.
Something else occurred to me about the proposed polyatomic and diatomic subcategories. Texts that discuss the properties of the representative elements usually do so on a group by group basis. Invariably they start with the lightest member and then go down the group. And usually in the case of nonmetals the structure of each element is mentioned e.g. diatomic N with its triple bond resulting in superficially low reactivity, and polyatomic P with its highly strained and reactive structure and, if you're lucky, the much more stable and more metallic black allotrope with its curious polyatomic layered structure. So, the diatomic, polyatomic or monatomic structures of nonmetals form a natural part of such discourses which, in hindsight, is quite neat. Sandbh ( talk) 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
A few of the IP editors have raised the question of mixed category elements. There is an example in the German Wikipedia, here. Se is shown as metalle/halbmetalle; At is shown as metalle/halogene. We (Double Sharp, R8R, DePiep and I) discussed the idea of mixed category elements a while ago. I like them as way of solving thorny categorization questions and avoiding the need for categorisation contortions in order to get every one of the elements into just one our current ten categories. R8R didn't like them for for their lack of clarity; Double sharp didn't like them either; DePiep suggested they could imply a diagonal relationship that may not be there. What's got me going about this again has been the discussions about (1) poor metals & Al: poor metals and where or if Al fits into this category; (2) group 3 and REM: what to about group 3 and Sc, Y, La, Ac, Lu, Lr, and the proposed rare earth category; and (3) Metallicity: the recent posts by the IP editors re the metallicity of the elements.
Before I do much more work re-looking at the possibility of mixed category elements, I'd like to hear what people currently think about this idea. Sandbh ( talk) 11:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
|
transition metal, so as to do away with much categorisation angst.
Sandbh (
talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that mixed category is really good solution for too metalloidal nonmetals such as C or Se and it will be good if it will be implied. It could be also implied for poor (chemically) transition metals (such as Au and Pt), which have higher electronegativity in Pauling scale than phosphorus and hydrogen and form relatively stable monoanions. Al and Be are in the poorer chemically group of metals. Group 12 metals are also physically and chemically rather poor.
Lu really looks not like a lanthanoid according to these links. Its popular position is even misleading, maybe erroneous. Lu should be placed below Y. It is quite clear from the papers. Discussion about Lu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lutetium
And link from the discussion does not work... Interesting...
79.191.180.224 ( talk) 18:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Do you have any thoughts as to a better way to depict mixed category elements, should such a thing eventuate? I'm sure there are other ways to do this besides stripes (which I find to be quite garish), and diagonals. Sandbh ( talk) 01:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Before choosing a striping pattern, let's find as many options as possible.
Currently, only pre-known groups, categories, and the element-self page can be marked this way. And only in the micro PT (!). After expanding the options
|mark=1,15,21,33
.Saves us from having to pre-define any mixing, any striping. Discussion on what to "mix", and on which page, in which detail -- all becomes more of a content discussion (not a question of how to squeeze it wikitechnically into PT).
From these elements, C, Se and P are most metallic, next are: I, S, then H, Rn.
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Lanthanides | Actinides | Transition metals | Post-transition metals | Metalloids | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases |
194.29.130.244 ( talk) 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
83.6.21.120 ( talk) 22:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||||||||
|
Oh come on, people.
You're talking about how to define stripees, but haven't shown they're needed in first place.
Stripees are not good. For pros maybe, but not for a general reader.
Many, many, many people, maybe half of them or even more are people who can rate astatine negatively just because it doesn't have the sodium astatide formula. If I were talking to a chem professor, I would mention those nuances. Not in a general table, ever.
And remember, metalloids are already a transition class. Why have a transition class between a normal class and a transition class?
Most people don't even read table legends, in general, remember that.
It is a pity that there is no stripping "transition metal + poor metal" It's not. To get the point with aurides and stuff, you would need to knopw it in first place. Or have some real understanding in chemistry.
Most people think of aluminum as of a metal. Those who do normally think of it as one similar to gallium and indium rather than AMs or AEMs.
Draw a general picture, don't go into details unless it is expected (for example, how about a near metalloid article? it could take some info from metalloid info, we could give it a few links in some of our articles and we could treat it as a group like platinum group metals).
KISS.
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||||||||
|
We can go even further.
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||
|
-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
About third periodic table: "Near-metalloids" have too alien properties to just count them along with strong nonmetals. They are a class themselves. Carbon is closer to boron or silicon than to fluorine. Selenium is more similar to tellurium than to chlorine, phosphorus to arsenic than to oxygen. Iodine is poorer (volatile and diatomic) near-metalloid, radon and hydrogen also shows some non-nonmetallic properties in their chemistry. Sulfur is on the border of so-called "near-metalloids" and nonmetals.
Noble gases are a class of nonmetals. Idea of splitting to reactive nonmetals and noble gases is poor.
I want to separate oddities such as carbon and selenium from strong, typical nonmetals. They just have too marked metallic properties, which are in contast of the general picture of a nonmetal (but nonmetallic character is still greater than metallic). Sometimes (by using metal-nonmetal dividing line) even more metallic elements (B, Si, As, Te, At) are counted as nonmetals.
83.31.138.237 ( talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I am talking (in fact) about the lack of near-metalloids in third periodic table on this page. Many properties of near-metalloids are worth to mark. They can for example: have very high melting, boiling or sublimation points, be very hard, really well conductive, look metal-like, be good semiconductors.
83.31.138.237 ( talk) 23:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm now satisifed(!) that aluminium does qualify as a poor metal, whereas beryllium doesn't. A poor metal is a physically weak metal that shows significant nonmetallic chemistry. Beryllium and aluminium both show significant nonmetallic chemistry. However beryllium is pretty strong whereas aluminium isn't. Here are some unattributed snippets from Google Books illustrating the difference:
There are plenty more like that.
In conclusion, and as I see it: Be = alkaline earth; Al = poor; Group 3 (Sc, Y, Lu, Lr) = marginal TMs; La–Yb = lanthanides; Ac–No = actinides. We keep the alkali metal and alkaline earth categories. Further distinctions as to the non-metallic character of metals (e.g. Au) or the metallic character of nonmetals (e.g. H, C, Se) can be made in the articles for the respective elements. I think the rare earths are better regarded as an uber-category comprising the first three members of group 3 + the lanthanides.
With respect, if the IP editors want to make a case for a different categorisation scheme that includes e.g. near metalloids then they need to do a write up that (a) satisfies the YBG rules; and (b) is fully referenced, as per the current nonmetal article. The YBG rules are that any new categorisation scheme be clear ('The criterion for division should be easily explained'); unambiguous ('It should be relatively obvious which category each element fits into'); and meaningful ('The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing. There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopaedia article.'). Sandbh ( talk) 12:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
194.29.130.244 ( talk) 17:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The chief ones we need to worry about are E117 and E118. (E171 is treading on dangerous ground, assuming based on properties similar to I2 that it would form (171)2, but I think we've sorted that one out. And E172 is a very good noble gas, though it's probably actually a noble liquid or solid.) IP, I want your comments, please... ;-)
I've given quotes from Fricke below, to supplement the material from the articles ( ununseptium, ununoctium, period 9 element).
(Fricke 1974) "Element 117. (eka-astatine) is expected to have little similarity to what one usually calls a halogen, mainly because its electron affinity will be very small. Cunningham (96) predicted its value as 2.6 eV, whereas the calculations of Waber, Cromer and Liberman (54) gave a value of only 1.8 eV. As a result of this small electron affinity, and from extrapolations of the chemical properties of the lighter halogen homologs, all authors agree that the +3 oxidation state should be at least as important as the −1 state, and possibly more so. To take an example, element 117 might resemble Au(+3) in its ion-exchange behavior with halide media. Cunningham (96) describes the solid element 117 as having a semimetallic appearence."
(1971) "Occupation of the 7p3/2 subshell begins at Z = 115 with a binding energy which is only half as large as that of the 7p1/2 electrons, so that the elements E115, E116 and E117 will have +1, +2 and +3, respective1y, as their normal oxidation state. The higher oxidation states will be possible only in the presence of strong oxidizers. An interesting question is whether element E117 which is in the chemical group of the halogens would form the -1 anion. Cunningham predicted a electron affinity of 2.6 eV whereas the calculations of Waber, Cromer and Liberman calculated a value of only 1.8 eV. Cunningham describes the solid element El17 to have a semi-metallic appearance. It should form stable oxyions of the (III), (V), and (VII) states and stable interhalogen compounds. Because of the small electron affinity it might not exhibit the -1 oxidation state, which is even further suggested by the smaller value calculated by Waber et al. Certainly it will be a very soft base compared with fluoride or chloride which have a electron affinity of 4 eV resp. 3 eV."
(Fricke 1974) "A. V. Grosse wrote a prophetie article (95) in 1965 before the nuclear theorists began to publish their findings concerning the island of stability. In this paper he gave detailed predictions of the physical and chemieal properties of element 118 (eka-radon), the next rare gas. He pointed out that eka-radon would be the most electropositive of the rare gases. In addition to the oxides and fluorides shown by Kr and Xe, he predicted that 118 would be likely to form a noble gas-chlorine bond. These very first extrapolations into the region of superheavy elements have been fully confirmed by the calculations, because the first ionization potentials turn out to be much lower than in all the other noble gases. Independently Grosse (95) and Cunningham (96) found that the expected boiling point of liquid element 118 is about −15 °C, so that it will be nearly a "noble fluid". Because of its large atornic number it will, of course, be much denser than all the other noble gases. But, in general, the chemical behavior of element 118 will be more like that of a normal element, with many possible oxidation states like +2 and +4; +6 will be less important because of the strang binding of the p1/2 electrons. It will continue the trend towards chernical reactivity first observed in xenon."
(1971) "The "noble gas" at Z = 118 will be a very weak noble gas in the sense of He and Ar but as well in comparison to Xe and Rn. The ionization energy is so small that normal covalent bondings are expected with oxidation states of 4 and 6. The extrapolation of Cunningham [35] expects a boiling point of −15 °C so that it will be nearly a "noble fluid"..."
(1971) "Previous analysis by Waber, following an informal discussion with Fano, indicated that negative ions of the noble gases would have configurations such as np5 (n + 1)s2. The spectra of such species have been found at the National Bureau of Standards following electron bombardment of the noble gases. It would be expected that E118 could readily form such anions. Calculations have not confirmed the likelihood of such species. Independently Grosse and Cunningham found that the expected boiling point of liquid E1l8 is about -15°C, so that it will be nearly a "noble fluid". It might be predicted as well that the crystalline form would be much denser than the other noble gases. That is, the bonding in solid E118 would be stronger than given by van der Waals forces. These predictions from systematic continuation are supported by the calculation. Its first ionization energy is small, only 9 eV, and the strongly split p shell giving rise to frontier orbitals at the surface of the atom suggest that E118 will be more a normal element with many possible compounds than a noble element. Thus it will continue the trend towards chemical reactivity first observed in xenon."
(Fricke 1974; he says almost exactly the same thing in the other papers) "Element 171 is expected to have many possible oxidation states between −1 and +7, as the halogens do. Here again, the electron affinity will be high enough to form a hydrogen halide like H(171). Fricke et al. (56) calculated a value for the electron affinity of 3.0 eV, which is as high as the value of I−, so that (171)− will be quite a soft base."
(Fricke 1974; ditto) "Element 172 will be a noble gas with a closed p shell outside. The ionization energy of this element, as shown in Fig. 15, is very near to the value of Xe, so that it might be quite similar to this element. The only great difference between Xe and 172 is that element 172 is expected to be a liquid or even a solid at normal temperatures because of its large atomic weight. As indicated in connection with the noble gas 118, element 172 will tend to be a strong Lewis acid and hence compounds with F and O are expected, as has been demonstrated for xenon."
Double sharp ( talk) 12:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Element 85 (At, astatine) is now predicted to have metal band structure at normal conditions. E117 probably also will be a metal, what about E171 - I don't know, but it (for me) can also be a metal with high electron affinity, electronegativity and first ionisation energy.
What about apperance, volatility and conductivity of E118 and E172? Are they nonmetals, metalloids or even metals? It is really interesting, because, according to digonal trends, they should be at least metalloids.
79.191.55.205 ( talk) 15:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Near-metalloids (elements with general properties between metalloids and nonmetals) in the periodic table | |||||||||||
H | He | ||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||
K | Ca | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||
Rb | Sr | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||
Cs | Ba | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||
Fr | Ra | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||
Periodic table
groups 1, 2, and 12 through 18:
|
It looks that some metalloidal chaaracter of hydrogen and carbon is really important for life. Water should be a gas, but has the relatively very low volatility quotient for a nonmetal oxide (10 protons and boiling point 373 K - about 37,5). Low electronegativity of hydrogen is really important. Carbon can form very stable very long chains, also at normal conditions. Typical nonmetals are oligomeric (polymeric sulfur is not so stable at normal conditions, most polymeric nonmetals are C, P and Se - typical near-metalloids).
Diamond is not so clearly nonmetallic. It has some properties of a metalloid (such as thermal conductivity, polymeric three-dimensional structure (like Si and Ge, even white Sn), extreme hardness, very high density (it has very low atomic number, but (anything?) in third period has significantly lower density) and some of a nonmetal (wide band gap makes it colorless and electrically non-conducting). It is itself near-metalloid. Fullerenes are another near-metalloidal allotrope (C60 is quite lustrous and has electrical conductivity and band gap similar to boron at normal conditions), but not metalloidal (they are like noble gas - relative volatility is very high, opposite to diamond and graphite), are not so much olygomeric (have larger number of atoms in molecule than P4, S8 and Se8, even some metalloids can form (not very stable) oligomers at low temperatures (As4, Sb4)). Polymeric allotropes (such as graphite and grey Se) tend to be more metallic than oligomeric.
Iodine is very oligomeric (diatomic) at STP. It is not so metalloidal property, but I2 looks metalloidal (quite bright grey when pure) and has much higher conductivity than more polyatomic sulfur.
It would be very curious if astatine can form diatomic (highly stable) and metallic (band structure!) allotrope at STP. It is probable that usually given boiling point of astatine is boiling point of diatomic allotrope, metal should not have so narrow liquid range.
C, P, S are "half-metalloids" (these elements have very stable polymeric, metal-like looking, relatively conductive allotropes), I (has metal-looking allotrope but volatile, diatomic and less conductive than "metallic" forms of C, P, Se), S, H, Rn are "quarter-metalloids". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.68.96 ( talk) 21:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
79.191.193.99 ( talk) 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
S, H, I, Rn are greater issue in the case of the level of metallicity than C, P, Se. It is hard to say which of these earlier four element is the most metallic.
Sulfur is olygomeric (S8), but C, Se and P not. It is also interesting what about carbon - there are calculations which say that less metallic carbyne (with band gap over 3 eV) is more thermodynamically stable than metalloidal graphite. Diamond is very stable, but less stable than graphite. In addition, carbon (not sulfur) has the largest number of allotropes and its allotropes can really dramatically differ.
What about fullerene C20? Is it polymeric or monomeric? Is it a gas at STP or at least a liquid? What is most oligomeric stable form of carbon? Can forms such as atomic (not metallic) carbon, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10 be stable and not to polymerize? Many properties of graphite, nanotubes or even diamond definately rule carbon out of "just nonmetallic" group of elements and move it to a group of typical half-metalloids.
Carbon, phosphorus, selenium and metalloids are polymeric elements, sulfur is rather oligomeric.
Cow city ( talk) 22:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
C, P and Se are rather "metalloids with advantage of nonmetallic properties" than "nonmetals".
There are also typical metalloids (B, Si, As, Te) and metalloids with advantage of metallic properties (Ge, Sb).
I don't think that naming carbon or selenium a metalloid is an error. But aluminium should not be named as metalloid, mainly because of its band structure.
194.29.134.246 ( talk) 11:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
But classifying only selenium as a metalloid is certainly an (very popular) error. We should specially pay attention on it.
Carbon with its melting point looks really "stupid" between "just nonmetals". Phosphorus or selenium have far much more (above 3000 K lower) melting points.
194.29.134.246 ( talk) 14:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that C, P and Se may be even vieved as "metalloids closer to nonmetals", when B, Si, As, Te are "typical metalloids" and Ge and Sb are "metalloids closer to metals". All most stable forms at STP form of metalloids are semiconductor or semimetals and polymers with higher melting points than nonmetals. They have shades of grey and metallic luster.
Sulfur is an anomaly. It should be only diatomic due to its position in PT. What about metallic sulfur chains inside nanotubes?
Carbon (even colorless insulating diamond) looks funny inside nonmetals in its melting point about 3900 K. However, it (probably) is totally unable to form C-O-C-O-C-O... chains at STP. It has a mixture properties of a metalloid and a nonmetal ("half-boron" and "half-nitrogen", BN is practically "inorganic carbon"), therefore is not an "only-nonmetal". Situation of P and Se is very similar, but their metalloidal properties can be other due to larger size of the atom and higher weight of their atoms. H and Rn are very electropositive gases with marked cationic chemistry.
All solid at STP "nonmetals" are not so good examples of nonmetals not because of their state of matter at STP, but their metal-like apperance and polymeric structure. Metalloids are polymers with not true metallic band structure at STP (semiconductor or semimetal), such as typical near-metalloids (which also can be achieved as quite conductive metal-like looking solids known as graphite, black phosphorus nd grey selenium). Metal-looking graphite is rare, usually we see almost black dull powder or microcrystalline form of it. Black P is very unpopular, grey Se is the most "admired" near-metalloid. Iodine is poor conductor and volatile, but also has a luster and is even quite bright is its pure form.
There is not a staircase between metalloids and nonmetals, but rather a straight diagonal (C, P, Se are half-metalloids and half-nonmetals).
Diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals classification tells us not about summaric metallic properties, but mainly about structure of elements with more traits of nonmetals than metals. Some of them are in fact halfly metalloidal and halfly nonmetallic and these elements are also more typical "near-metalloids" (or just "weak metalloids") than some others (C, P, Se vs H, S, I, Rn).
Maybe it is the time to "kick off" "weird" elements from the small group of nonmetals?
Diagonals and stripping would be better than clssification with diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals. New class "near-metalloids" looks even better than them. And for H, S, I, Rn should be stripping or diagonal near-metalloid - nonmetal. Weaker elements with advantage of nonmetallic traits (C, P, Se; H, S, I, Rn) will then be separated from "strong" nonmetals (He, N, O, F, Ne, Cl, Ar, Br, Kr, Xe).
95.49.107.75 ( talk) 02:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Again: carbon, phosphorus and selenium are not just nonmetals. They are suspiciously "metallic". First two elements are really rare seen in their shiny forms.
The substance (named at the page as "black phosphorus") looks like a grey metalloid with strong luster, even not black (on the page http://schools.birdville.k12.tx.us/cms/lib2/TX01000797/Centricity/Domain/912/ChemLessons/Lessons/Allotropes/Allotropes.htm).
Here is a picture of greyish-black "flexible graphite" with quite strong metallic luster: http://www.tradekorea.com/product-detail/P00233560/Flexible_Graphite_Ring.html#.Up9o8tfArhQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.130.244 ( talk) 17:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to think it's a gradient from metals to hardcore nonmetals, but it doesn't matter.
Try to think of it in a different way (I did try your way of thinking about it before asking you to, of course, and still think you could use another perspective, so please do).
We can build a descriptive model of all elements with just three categories: metals, reactive nonmetals, and noble gases. It is an approximate model, but it can work. Just when describing the p block, you will have to mention antimony has a few characristics that are more nonmetallic than metallic, but is more of a metal than of a nonmetal if you consider the overall score. It was, in fact, taught to me in school. This model does work. It is simple. In the beginning, I t makes you think, "Aha, that's who it works, I get it." Seems we can make a more accurate version, though.
And there appears the concept of metalloids, the elements for which you had to do these remarks (e.g. begins to be nonmetallic). It is, in fact, a popular concept now. It avoids these remarks, shows the transition from metals to nonmetals to be smoother than just a cracking line between those metals and nonmetals, there's a buffer zone now. Works even better at the cost of simplicity and "gettability." Still not too complicated.
Now when you have metalloids, things are crazy. People can't agree on selenium. At the same point, you think, hey, we'll use a buffer then, put Se there. And hey, P would fit in. And I! C! (Maybe you got this idea in first place in some different way, it doesn't matter) Maybe. But having this category makes things crazier.
First of all, if I were shown the table as you propose it, say, five yrs ago, I wouldn't get the point. Which is a very very very very very major aspect. (Of course, it's not about me, it's about readers. Actually, most our readers are not specialists in the topic they read about. They wouldn't get the point. Which is sad. Wiki is for common people, that is the point for the whole thing.)
Seriously, the way you suggest to have it is scientifically legal. No question of that. But this is kinda pro level.
When you come to school at the age of seven, they don't make you solve differential equations. They teach you to subtract, multiply, count apples. 2 + 1 = 1 + 2, but the trick wouldn't do with subtraction. You have to know that (and a lot of other stuff) to get to differential equations. Otherwise, it would be just mambo jambo you would want to run away from.
Same thing here. A majority of readers would not know why you grouped it this way. Here, in Wiki, that is. If you were writing a specialized book or an article about the topic, and be sure it would be read by acknowledged people, you can include that pro level.
You understand the topic now, but hopefully that would not prevent you from trying to wear a pair of a dummy's shoes for this occasion.
If even they can't agree on Se. It is an issue, yes. But altogether with graphite seminonmetalicity, it's still the lesser of two evils.
Wiki, in a nutshell, is a place existing established data is represented. The term "near metalloid" (or any other I tried) is not common for Google. It is not obvious for most readers (not guys who understand how things are going on like you, of course), either. Again, the classification is legal elsewhere, in a place establishedness is not required.
Tl;dr It is a good classification for some purposes, but reader won't get it.--
R8R Gtrs (
talk) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
(P.S. There are other issues like metal near metalloids(?), gold, etc., but I consider the argument above much more important than all of those ones. Wiki is reader-oriented. It's not a place to install a new truth, however true it is. That's the whole point of Wiki.)
(P.P.S. I skipped the regular grammar check when writing this, because of the lack of time to spend here. Sorry if the text is too difficult to read. Hope it's not, though.)
If even they can't agree on Se. It is an issue, yes. But altogether with graphite seminonmetalicity, it's still the lesser of two evils. I do not agree with this opinion if it tells that Se is more metallic than Se. For me C is on the same level of metallicity as Se, maybe even a bit higher (of course, Se is more metallic in some classifications, but let's look also at P). And what about (black) P? It is also a "ner-metalloid". Typical near-metalloids are closer to typical metalloids than to typical nonmetals, they are not near-nonmetals. C, P nd overclassified Se have advantage of nonmetllic traits. Diamond is not so clearly nonmetallic as it is popularily thought. Structure, thermal conductivity, hardness, "desolidification" point are typically metalloidal (are such as Si and Ge, even not such as Se and P), but its appearance and electrical conductivity are nonmetallic (which is consistent with its position in the periodic table). In addition, graphite ("grey" or "metallic" carbon), black (grey, metallic) P and grey (metallic) Se are just (weaker than typical) metalloids itself (this classification does not include chemical properties of the elements and other allotropes), not nonmetals.
178.42.151.77 ( talk) 21:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Now when you have metalloids, things are crazy. People can't agree on selenium. At the same point, you think, hey, we'll use a buffer then, put Se there. And hey, P would fit in. And I! C! (Maybe you got this idea in first place in some different way, it doesn't matter) Maybe. But having this category makes things crazier.
I tink that metalloid category is useful to describe transition between metals and "nonmetals". Metallic "near-metalloids" (metals which are weak chemically and also physically) are named as poor metals (this name is also problematic). Nonmetallic near-metalloids can be polyatomic, diatomic and monoatomic, but the most typical (C, Se, P) are the most polyatomic of them. Diatomic I looks like a metalloid, but it can be the most metallic property of this element. H and Rn are very electropositive nonmetals and have marked cationic chemistry, it makes them flawed, not typical nonmetals. Metalloids tend to have EN about 2, near metalloids about 2,25 (H, P, Rn) - 2,5 (C, Se, S, I) and nonmetals about 3 (such as N, Cl, Br) and lower - O, F (Xe also has rather low - 2,6 in revised Pauling scale).
Nonmetal should not be polymeric, too conductive electrically or thermally, should not have metallic luster. Typical near-metalloids do something opposite - they are grey, metal-like-looking polymers with quite good conductivities, narrow baand gaps and rather high "desolidification" point (it is especially true for C).
There is no "staircase" which divides metalloids and nonmetals, but rather a diagonal - C, P, Se are half-metalloids and half-nonmetals than nonmetals. S can be also an issue - http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130712/ncomms3162/full/ncomms3162.html "Conducting linear chains of sulphur inside carbon nanotubes". Is there polymeric iodine allotrope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.151.77 ( talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Selenium is the large issue. Is it a nonmetal or a metalloid? Why only nonmetqallicity of selenium is questioned so often and not nonmetallicity of carbon and phosphorus? Iodine is less problematic, but in many properties closer to C, P, Se than to typical nonmetals. Sulfur also. All solid nonmetals are defective. They have stable lustrous and (or) are polyatomic. In almost all electronegaivity scales P has the lowest electronegativity from all nonmetals, lower than Se, which is closer to S and C, not to P. Why selenium is marked as a metalloid and P not? I think that it is unjust. Phosphorus pentoxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, selenium dioxide, selenium trioxide are more soluble and more acidic than oxides of carbon ( carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide). PCl5 and SeCl4 have very similar sublimation points. Phosphorus (V) oxide (especially polymeric forms) and selenium (IV) oxide can have quite large desolidification point. Se has qiute large reflectance about 30% - average ( http://webmineral.com/data/Selenium.shtml#.UqxTHidvhNM), but Te has about 2 times larger than Se - about 60% ( http://webmineral.com/data/Tellurium.shtml#.UqxSwidvhNM)and graphite about 2 times lower than Se - ca. 15% ( http://webmineral.com/data/Graphite.shtml#.UqxTZydvhNM), As has about 50 - 51% ( http://webmineral.com/data/Arsenic.shtml#.UqxT1SdvhNM). What about black phosphorus, boron (grey allotrope) and iodine?
Se has lower first ionisation energy than P and even As, S has is also lower than P. But the sum of first three ionisation energies is a bit lower in the case of phosphorus, not selenium. Tellurium has lower sum of first three IEs than P, unlike S and Se.
Carbon is weak chemically, it forms monomers with other nonmetals, such as N, O, S, Se, unlike metalloids. It is significant nonmetallic property. It has large ionisation energies and electronegativity. Physically it looks much more like polymeric, in fact quite conductive boron than highly nonmetallic nitrogen, but not chemically (rather opposite due to the formation of monomeric "nonmetallides"). B has a deficit of electrons, C not. And atom of C is small and light, P is heavier and larger, atom of Se is definately the largest of the atoms of four polyatomic nonmetals (C, P, Se). Although P has lower electronegativity, Se forms tetrameric tetrachloride, just like Te. It is an overlap. Se should be more metallic than S due to periodic laws. Some attributes should be shared with Te, but many should not and are not shared. Sometimes properties of Se are intermediate between properties of S and Te. SO2 and SeO2 are soluble in water, unlike TeO2. But H2SeO3 has lower pKa than sulfur analog, it is has pKa rather between pKa of H2CO3 (weaker) and H2SO3 (stronger). Volatility of SeO2 is between volatilities of S and Te analogs. H2Te is stronger acid than H2Se. But Se2Cl2 is low-melting and volatile. SeO3 is like SO3, not like TeO3, does H2TeO4 exist and what is its acid strength? SeF4 is rather monomeric, unlike TeF4. Electronegativity of Se is closer to its of S, not Te. Grey Se looks like a bit weaker version (lower mp and bp - diamond has larger mp and bp than Si and Ge; wider band gap, significantly lower reflectance) of grey Te. Se can be present as relatively stable olygomers such as Se8 (just as other typical near-metalloids), but I have not listened about sulfur-like olygomers of Te. Se and S forms volatile liquid compound with carbon (monomers), CTe2 (or better Te2C) is unknown. Carbon is an intermediate between B and N in general. P is more like As than N! It is also a near-metalloid, white allotrope is not the most stable, even red is not. Sublimation point of polymeric P is relatively similar to sulblimation point of metallic As. Electronegativity of P is much closer to As than its of N. Sulfur is also more similar to Se, not to O. Diagonals or strippings in the case of C, P, Se would be very useful and informing solutions - C, P and Se are intermediates between typical metalloids and nonmetals. They are "halfly metalloidal", which is the source of they marked metalloid properties, such as lustre, conductivity, polymerism, quite low electronegativities (especially in the case of P). Se is chemically and physically similar rather to P, not to Te and has to be classified in one metallicity class with P.
95.49.99.226 ( talk) 13:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
The polonium article states that "Due to its position in the periodic table, polonium is sometimes referred to as a metalloid, however others note that on the basis of its properties and behaviour it is 'unambiguously a metal.'" It has many more metallic properties than non-metallic ones (see Metalloid#Polonium). Shouldn't we be basing our treatment and classification of an element on the basis of its properties and behaviour and not its position in the periodic table? Double sharp ( talk) 08:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Consistent with the above observations, I struggle to find sufficient grounds for classifying polonium as a metalloid. It shows a few nonmetallic or intermediate properties but these are 'trumped' by its metallic properties, especially the combination of: metallic band structure; metallic conductivity; the presence of a polonium cation in mildly acidic aqueous solution; and the basicity of its oxide. Polonium would be better classified as a post-transition metal. As you note R8R, the nonmetallic properties of polonium are found in, for example, some of the transition metals yet these are not classified as metalloids.
Astatine suffers from having a relatively obscure chemistry. Per Double sharp, this means that it tends to inherit the default nonmetal status of its lighter halogen congeners. Apparently halogen membership trumps being next to the metal-nonmetal dividing line, artificial as the latter construct is. OTOH, reading selectively from the literature:
Against this background, and noting...
...astatine is currently better classified as a metalloid. IMPs of iodine include: residual metallic luster; semi-conductivity (band gap = 1.35 ev); photoconductivity; electron delocalization within the layers of the solid iodine lattice; its metallic transformation under the application of relatively modest pressure; the metal-like electrical conductivity of the liquid form; the existence of the +1 iodine cation in pyridine solution and associated salts; and the polymeric structure of its most stable oxide, I2O5.
Sandbh ( talk) 07:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm fairly convinced that At deserves to be called a metalloid, but that would clash with its (also relevant) halogen status. What do you propose? (Getting rid of the "halogens" category would solve the problem, but would be far too drastic for my tastes.) Double sharp ( talk) 13:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Double sharp ( talk) 14:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Lanthanides | Actinides | Transition metals | Post-transition metals | Metalloids | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases |
Double sharp ( talk) 13:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the halogens should be kept on the table. They are distinctly different from other nonmetals, and have their own chemical properties. However, in the case of astatine, I like the idea that was proposed in the Polonium--Metal or Metaloid section: See whether astatine has more metaloid or halogen properties. King jakob c ( talk) 14:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
As flagged, here's a table that addresses the problems with the categorization of Al and At, and retains and expands the presence of group names:
Non-standard colour scheme. An old one I found in my files; haven't spent any time seeing if it could be improved.
Pre-transition metals. As used in the literature. Cox (2004, pp. 185–186) is a good example.
Rare earth metals. I've used this as a category name given it's more popular than 'lanthanides'. Google returned 1,170,000 hits for rare earth metals and 739,000 for lanthanides.
Poor metals. No accepted short-hand term exists for the well-documented notion of a bunch of 'second string' metals characterized by physically and chemically weaker metallic properties, and which generally occupy the region between the transition metals and the metalloids. I agree with Double sharp that 'poor metals' is a reasonable title for this category, given the problems with the alternatives e.g. 'B metals'; 'B subgroup metals'; 'chemically weak metals'; 'metametals'; 'other metals'; 'post-transition metals'; and 'semimetals'. [That being so, I like the old school feel of 'B subgroup metals' and could go with it as long other editors wouldn't see too much of a clash with the 'type a | borderline | type b' categorisation construct for the behaviour of metal ions.]
I've shown Be, Al, Cu, Ag, Au and Lr as partly belonging to this category. The non-metallic properties of Be (metallic-covalent bonding structure; predominately covalent chemistry; amphoteric oxides; anionic beryllate formation) are cited in the literature. Rayner-Canham and Overton (2006, pp. 29–30), for example, categorize Be as a chemically weak metal (ditto Al). For the latter, see also Metalloid#Aluminium. The elements Cu, Ag and Au are transition metals, and are included here in cognizance of the main-group chemistry of their univalent compounds; general tendency to form covalent compounds; and amphoteric oxides. Phillips and Williams (1966, pp. 4–5), for example, categorize Cu, Ag and Au as transition metals as well as B-metals. Lastly, I've counted Lr as being partly a poor metal on the basis of its predicted electronic structure of [Rn] 7s2 5f147p1 rather than [Rn]7s25f146d1.
We can discuss whether the Group 12 metals ought to instead be counted as transition metals. As I understand it, they aren't much chop physically in comparison to the transition metals proper, and chemically they're overwhelmingly not transition metals.
Core metals. No accepted short-hand term exists for the well-documented notion of a set of 'garden variety' nonmetals, between the metalloids and the noble gases. Accordingly, I suggest the descriptive title/phrase 'core metals' for this category, consistent with Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Neologisms.
Group 3 membership. After thirty years, Jensen's argument (1982) for the placement of Lu and Lr in Group 3 still stands, and is better, in terms of its eloquence, than anything else on offer.
Metal-nonmetal line. I've positioned this above the centre of the metalloid category box rather than between the poor metals box and the metalloids box. I'm still in two minds as to which way would be better.
References
Sandbh ( talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Leave as is with halogens out. I don't want a big debate (already developed). Will try to say once and never revise the words.
Also, a funny thing that one of Berkeley reports I've seen uses our current scheme. We'll run them outdated if anything changes :-)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This is where we are up to, as I see it:
What do others say? Sandbh ( talk) 13:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A simple upgrade would be to:
(1) change 'post-transition metals' to 'poor metals';
(2) change the colour coding of astatine to that of a metalloid;
(3) change the 'halogen' category to a 'highly active nonmetals' category;
(4) change the colour coding of nitrogen and oxygen to that of highly active nonmetals (in light of their high Pauling electronegativity values); and
(5) change the 'other nonmetals' category to 'moderately active nonmetals'.
Such an upgrade would:
I think an argument could be made that iodine is not quite in the same league as the other active nonmetals when it comes to EN and, for example, oxidizing power, but would be happy enough for now with the highly active nonmetals being shown as N, O and the remaining (nonmetal) halogens. Sandbh ( talk) 08:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Double sharp, thank you. I've been thinking about this for a while and was just about to post something when I saw your comments, just above. DePiep was right when he said, "I know it [element categorization] is old & tough, but isn't solving that what we are here for?." I'll post what I was going to say and then respond to your comments.
Here's a table showing the proposed element categories:
The colour scheme is the standard one. The halogens aren't shown with a separate colour, on account of the (very good) reason given by R8R Gtrs.
The distinction between highly active and moderately active nonmetals follows that of Wulfsberg (1987, pp. 159–161). He groups the nonmetals into two categories, based on their electronegativity value. Nonmetals having an electronegativity of > 2.8 he calls very electronegative nonmetals (= N, O, F, Cl, Br); the rest, including iodine, he calls electronegative nonmetals. I've used 'active' instead of 'electronegative' as the main adjective, in order to be consistent with the categorization of noble gases as 'noble' or 'inactive' nonmetals.
In chemistry terms, the two categories of highly active and moderately active nonmetals are congruent with HSAB theory: highly active nonmetals are hard or borderline bases; the remaining moderately active nonmetals (including H– and I–) are soft bases.
Response to your comments (Rant warning: not aimed at you, just a general one). The term 'Other nonmetals' is "malarky". It means nothing. It's a "garbage can" term, for the leftovers, when nothing better comes to mind. It has almost zero information content. The first time I saw 'Other nonmetals' was in Wikipedia. Having not seen the term before, I remember thinking WTF are other nonmetals? Metalloids: check! Halogens: check! Noble gases: check! But WTF are other nonmetals? Sure, I knew the individual elements but had no idea what the common thread was that caused them to be called other nonmetals. The 'other' in 'other metals' conveyed no sense of meaning. OTOH, the meaning of highly/moderately active nonmetals would be significantly more familiar to most readers, including chemistry, science, and related professionals (IMO). Whereas there is (almost) no chemistry behind 'other metals', no immediately obvious sense of meaning, and no value or information add. It's an awful term that we should seek to consign to the dustbin of history, given the existence of much better terminology, in terms of (1) precedent in the literature; (2) grounding in chemistry; (3) meaning; (4) value add; and (5) internal consistency (per R8R Gtrs' insightful observation). That concludes today's rant.
Sandbh ( talk) 15:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
So, after over a month of discussion, shouldn't we ask the members who haven't participated in this discussion what they think the outcome should be, similarly to what happened with our vote for a flagship article (which was decided to be hydrogen)? Double sharp ( talk) 12:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
My proposal (close to R8R's):
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(BTW, don't delete Template:Element color/Halogens after it becomes unused. That would break almost every old revision of a periodic table.)
Of course, H is not really a typical nonmetal. But then, what do we do with it?
(P.S. Cn is actually only known to be a metal, and not a transition metal, as R8R Gtrs states. However, we can't really use any other colouring than "transition metal".) Double sharp ( talk) 05:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
how about reactive non-metals (i.e. not inert) instead of typical? Nergaal ( talk) 14:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
==== random break ====
end of ==== random break ====
Yes, I'm not really not in favor of cutting nonmetals in two (did offer invitations instead). I think the usage of the term shown is more like that of a useful phrase than a strict scientific term (doubt it that there are established definitions of "moderately active nonmetals"), this configuration's also tricky.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This came to my mind: can we call that category "unspecified nonmetals" (halogens and noble gases being the specified ones of course)? In standalone use, outside of the categories, the wording "other nonmetals" is awkward indeed. The reader thinks he or she is missing something (correctly). - DePiep ( talk) 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorting out hydrogen is the key, as I see it. StringTheory11 was on the mark with his suggestion along the lines of showing hydrogen in its own non-metal sub-category. As per DePiep's approach, there is strong support for such a treatment in the literature. For example: "The chemistry of hydrogen is so unique that this element is in reality in a class by itself" (McCoy & Terry 1920, p. 562); "The chemistry of hydrogen bears little resemblance to that of any other element…" (Emsley 1971, p. 20); "Hence the chemistry of hydrogen is the only chemistry of its kind, as it were, the chemistry of an elementary particle, the proton." (Trifonov & Vlasov 1987, p. 24). Nergaal: unless I've missed something your opposition to this proposal, on the basis that hydrogen would then stand out too much, appears to lack a strong scientific basis.
If hydrogen is recognized as a nonmetal in its own subcategory, the rest of the categorization puzzle more or less falls into a better place. Major categories would be Metals, Nonmetals, and Unknown chemical properties. Subcategories would be (current) alkali metals through transition metals, plus poor metals; then metalloids, hydrogen, typical nonmetals, and noble gases. Having thought about this some more I'd also recommend that the shared borderline between the metals category box and the nonmetals category box be positioned over the middle of the metalloid subcategory box (in the same manner as is shown in the eight category table), rather than the current practice of showing metalloids as a major category.
YBG, re your vision of a periodic table showing both categories and groups: sign me up.
Sandbh ( talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've deliberately used a soft colour here for H, so that it doesn't stand out too much, but this colour is in no way finalized and is open to suggestions. Double sharp ( talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hydrogen is more special than other elements because its chemical behavior is distinctly odd—much more so than any other element. Two results then come to mind. The first is that hydrogen doesn't have any nonmetal or metal peers (unlike helium -> noble gases; carbon -> typical nonmetals; and lead -> poor metals). The second is that hydrogen doesn't map well to any periodic table group—witness over 100 years of arguments as to which group hydrogen should belong to (including e.g. 1, 14, 17, no group, its own group or multiple groups), and
Mellor's description of hydrogen as a 'rogue' element.
In terms of its chemical behavior, hydrogen:
This is very strange behavior for a nonmetal. Even when behaving more conventionally as a non-metal, in the form of a hydride ion, the resulting compounds are intrinsically unstable since the hydrogen atom, with its single proton, is unable to sufficiently control two valence electrons.
Hydrogen doesn't satisfy any descriptive criterion or set of criteria attempting to define a metal that I'm aware of. It's clearly a non-metal in that sense. But neither is its chemistry—which is the chemistry of the proton rather than the chemistry of an element—typical (so to speak) of typical non-metals.
Sandbh (
talk) 11:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Metal groups |
Metaloid |
Nonmetal | Unknown chemical properties | |||||||
Alkali metal |
Alkali earth metal |
Lanthanide |
Actinide |
Transition metal |
Post-transition metal |
Other nonmetals |
Halogen |
Noble gas |
Nergaal was right when he said, 'how about reactive non-metals (i.e. not inert) instead of typical? Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)'. Sure, hydrogen is comparatively unreactive at room temperature and nitrogen is nearly inert but both are way more reactive elements—in general—than the noble gases, as are the rest of the non-noble nonmetals. Using reactive nonmetals instead of typical nonmetals makes the hydrogen problem go away. And whereas I can't find much specific usage in the literature of other nonmetals there are many more mentions I can find of reactive nonmetals or variations thereof (e.g. less reactive, reactive, more reactive, highly reactive, most reactive etc). So, it's a big metalloid vote from me to replace other nonmetals with reactive nonmetals.
The only question then remaining would be whether to distinguish between highly reactive nonmetals (O?, F, Cl, Br?) and the rest of the (merely) reactive nonmetals. The halogens may not have their own color anymore but there may still be some value in highlighting the highly reactive nonmetals, given this terminology is often associated with the elements in the vicinity of the top right hand corner of the periodic kingdom.
Sandbh (
talk) 23:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sandbh ( talk) 04:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Sandbh ( talk) 08:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) What about dividing nonmetals into (1) Hydrogen (2) Solid nonmetals and (3) noble gases? YBG ( talk) 05:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking through the literature I find that O, F, Cl, Br are the only nonmetals that are more or less consistently referred to as being 'highly reactive', or the like. In contrast, I can't get a clear highly reactive bead on any of the rest of the nonmetals:
On the above basis, it seems to me that a reasonable argument can be made for distinguishing between three categories of nonmetals:
Reactive nonmetals (7): H, C, N, P, S, Se, I
Highly reactive nonmetals (4): O, F, Cl, Br
Noble gases (6): He, Ne, Ar. Kr, Xe, Rn
The benefits of such a taxonomy, as I see it, are: It gets rid of the execrable term 'Other nonmetals'. It eliminates any difficulties with hydrogen. It preserves the current three-fold categorization of the nonmetals: less reactive | more reactive | nonreactive. It is grounded in the literature. It doesn't disturb the current colour scheme.
Sandbh (
talk) 07:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's what I mean:
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||||||||||
|
Sandbh ( talk) 09:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the "halogens" category is going to disappear no matter what proposal we adopt, what category (predicted, of course) should we put elements 117, 167, and 217 into in {{ Compact extended periodic table}}? Would 118, 168, and 218 be reasonably able to be predicted as being noble gases? Double sharp ( talk) 15:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 139 | 140 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)
Double sharp (
talk) 14:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Hey, I just realized that a switch to Pyykkö means we need to go alter heavier homologs from like Upo to Uhn in articles like hassium (see infobox). Can someone give it a try?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Done {{ Compact extended periodic table}} now stops at 172 and uses the Pyykkö model. I changed the systematic names to simple atomic numbers: although using the systematic symbols is more consistent with the non-extended table, it's easier for the reader if the number is used, since the reader might not know what the systematic symbols mean. Double sharp ( talk) 06:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for the paper! Here's what I can conclude after reading this:
118 will be a very bad noble gas. Some scientific papers require reading between the lines to correctly interpret them when it jumps from calculations to conclusions. In our case, they still do not refuse to call it a noble gas, but if they called it so no more, it would sound like a sensation back then probably. At least, this would be more interesting to write about. They do mention the reduction of this nobility character, but this shows us they do not think it to be a regular metal. At least not sure in that. The "normal compounds" is a vague term -- is radon difluoride a normal compound? If the answer is yes (which I would pick), then it's not a point-- we still call radon noble. Anyway, such a move (recoloring 118) would be quite bold and thus require more backup proof. Note also it's a part of the FT "Noble gases."
171 can be an actual metalloid. My first thought after reading the article was even "It's a nonmetal!", but it's probably not the case. I'll try to explain how this went on, and you try to correct me, ok? So, the p electrons split into two parts, the faster the higher Z is. See graph. (These effects alter chem of the elements by 10% and 18-33%, respectively, while the figure for iodine is 1%, and for bromine, chlorine, and fluorine, this is too small to consider, much like we don't consider quantum stuff for macroscopic objects, which is a very very very close approximation, or mass loss during a chemical reaction). The 9p(1/2) electrons are too stabilized and the 8p(3/2) are too destabilized, so they actually very close in energy, and form a p shell of six electrons, which behaves like a single one (despite its contents!). Simply extrapolating that data, we could say that the p energy level is not going to be too close to zero, so it would take a strong oxidizer to get high oxidation states. And also the -1 state seems to be more likely than for 117, both by imagination and according to calculations. 172 is reasonable to stay in its color as well.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 13:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Also, after reading the text, I realized that the two schemes in this section is exactly the same, interpreted differently. I like the first one more, and if anyone thinks so not, I can write my arguments.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 13:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Fricke paper seems to state that 157 will be in group 3, 158 will be in group 4, etc., and that 164 will really be a group 10 element, despite putting them in groups 5–12 in the periodic table figure given. Double sharp ( talk) 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
However, Haire states that the 9s and 9p1/2 states will be readily available for hybridization, so the fact that 8s are no longer valence electrons might not actually change much. Double sharp ( talk) 05:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that what is being proposed is three major categories of elements, looking like this(?):
Sandbh ( talk) 00:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
In our multi-category periodic table do we categorise elements on the basis of their most thermodynamically stable states at ambient conditions or their most common form? My question relates to P. Black P is the most stable allotrope and is relatively inert; red P is far more common and relatively stable; white P is the commonest allotrope of all but is unstable. I gather the 'standard state' of P is regarded as being white P on the basis of its ease of preparation, industrial importance and commonality, despite its extreme instability. This approach has never seemed to me to represent good science—provides no basis for valid comparison. Sandbh ( talk)
Based on all of the lengthy discussion so far, including about O and P, how does the following scheme look(?):
Highly reactive nonmetals are those that are either caustic or corrosive, or both. Sandbh ( talk) 10:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Becausee At is a halogen but not a nonmetal (it's a metalloid), and the problem gets worse for 117. On the other end of the periodic table (group 1 and 2), no matter how far down you go on the periodic table, the elements are still metals. Double sharp ( talk) 03:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's a summary of the proposals for renaming and/or subdividing the non-noble nonmetals:
# | 1st subcategory | 2nd subcategory | Categorization basis |
1 | Core: H, C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, Se, Br, I | The essential part of a thing | |
2 | Hydrogen: H | Typical: C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, Se, Br, I | H is not a typical nonmetal |
3 | Moderately active: H, C, P, S, Se, I | Active: N, O, F, Cl, Br | Electronegativity; HSAB principle |
4 | Unspecified: H, C, N, O, P, S, Se | Halogens: F, Cl, Br, I | Awkwardness of "Other nonmetals" category |
5 | Reactive: H, C, N, O, F, P, S, Cl, Se, Br, I | Reactive nometals are reactive compared to noble gases | |
6 | Reactive: H, C, N, P, S, Se, I | Highly reactive: O, F, Cl, Br | Consistent literature descriptions of "highly reactive" nonmetals as being highly reactive |
7 | Reactive H, C, N, O, P, S, Se | Corrosive: F, Cl, Br, I | Corrosive characteristics, as described in literature (overlooked O) |
8 | Reactive: H, C, N, S, Se | Highly reactive: O, F, P, Cl, Br, I | Corrosive or caustic characteristics, as described in literature |
Of these proposals, #6 was comparably well-received. I like it because there are no issues with allotropes (e.g. P); it preserves the top right hand corner feel for the most reactive nonmetals; it maintains two categories of non-noble nonmetals; it results in a nice progression of subcategories down the halogens; and it looks OK visually (bright yellow colour aside).
Is there any further support for this proposal? Sandbh ( talk) 12:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Here. Sandbh ( talk) 21:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this contribution is to provide a quantitative basis for distinguishing between reactive and highly reactive nonmetals. To do this, the following table gives the properties of all the non-noble nonmetals, across nine properties associated with reactivity:
Nonmetal | Electron affinity kJ/mol |
Electro- negativity |
Enthalpy of dis- sociation kJ/mol |
Standard reduction potential V |
Caustic? | Corrosive? | Pyro- phoric? |
HSAB | Forms noble gas com- pounds? |
Reactivity boxes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F | 334 | 3.98 | 159 | 2.87 | 1 | 1 | 0 | H | Y | 8 |
Cl | 355 | 3.16 | 242 | 1.36 | 1 | 1 | 0 | H/B | P | 7.25 |
Br | 331 | 2.96 | 193 | 1.07 | 1 | 1 | 0 | B/S | N | 6.25 |
O | 147 | 3.44 | 498 | 1.23 | 0 | 1 | 0 | H | Y | 5 |
I | 301 | 2.66 | 151 | 0.54 | 1 | 1 | 0 | S | N | 4 |
S | 207 | 2.58 | 266 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | S | N | 2 |
Se | 201 | 2.55 | 332 | –0.40 | 0 | 0 | 0 | S | N | 2 |
P | 78 | 2.19 | 198 | 0.01 | 0 | 0 | 1 | S | N | 2 |
N | 0 | 3.04 | 945 | 0.27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | B | N | 1.5 |
H | 79 | 2.20 | 436 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | H | N | 1 |
C | 128 | 2.55 | 346 | 0.13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | S | N | 0 |
Average | 196 | 2.85 | 342 | 0.66 |
Note: Caustic = destructive of organic tissue.
If a particular property is quantitative, the last row gives the average value of the listed nonmetals.
I've then used yellow shading to indicate which nonmetals have an above average value for that property, and light grey shading for those that have a below average value (the other way 'round in the case of enthalpy of dissociation). Aqua shading denotes an intermediate value. If a property is binary (e.g. Caustic?) then the distinction between above average and below average is self-explanatory. In the case of HSAB rating I've assigned a value of 1 to 'hard' (H); a value of 0.5 to borderline (B); and a value of 0 to 'soft' (S). If a nonmetal is sometimes listed as more than one HSAB category, I've assigned it the average of the applicable values. In the Forms noble gas compounds? column, Cl has a value of P for possibly since that is the way I read the literature on this question.
The last column shows how many 'above average' property boxes a particular nonmetal has ticked. Since 9 is the greatest number of property boxes that can be ticked it follows that > 4.5 boxes is above average and < 4.5 is below average.
In case anybody is wondering, and as an example, enthalpy of dissociation (or element bond strength) is associated with reactivity: 'The high dissociation enthalpy of the O2 molecule, 498 kJ/mol, is the reason that molecular O. is relatively unreactive and its reactions usually require thermal or photochemical activation.' (Eagleson 1994, p. 768)
On the basis of the above table, nonmetals of above average or high reactivity are F, Cl, Br and O, an outcome that is consistent with the literature.
Overall, there isn't much involved with this approach. It would be expected that any particular nonmetal with an above average number of properties that have above average values for properties associated with reactivty, would have above average or high overall reactivity. I didn't know what the outcome of this approach would be when I started and I didn't really care, because the values would fall where they fell, but I did think that F and Cl would be up there.
Yes, I'm still proposing we distinguish between reactive and highly reactive nonmetals since this is a well established periodic trend in descriptive chemistry, as consistently cited in this thread. The above table provides a non-subjective way of distinguishing between the two categories, by drawing on known values of relevant properties and sorting these into simple above or below average boxes. Sandbh ( talk) 11:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not well-versed in the WP policies, but I'm wondering how WP:OR applies in this instance. Clearly, the individual entries in the cells are not OR, but I'm not so sure about the conclusion as to where the line should be drawn. I don't feel strongly about this, but I'm just trying to think things through. And just for interest, I made the above table sortable. YBG ( talk) 05:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Is there any appetite for (1) replacing the alkali metal, and alkaline earth metal categories, with the single category of s-block metals; and (2) having just two categories of nonmetals: the reactive nonmetals, and the noble gases? I still advocate showing the group names on our periodic table, so the 'alkali metal' and the 'alkaline earth metal' groups would still be identifiable, just as all the other group names would be included. I also still think dividing the reactive metals into reactive and highly reactive categories is markedly more informative chemistry, but I could live with an eight category table as a better construct than what we have now. Sandbh ( talk) 11:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to briefly re-address concerns raised in this thread about splitting the nonmetals in two. Our periodic table has always split the nonmetals into two categories: other nonmetals, and halogens. This split is broadly consistent with the well-established distinction made in the literature between less reactive nonmetals and more reactive nonmetals. Now, if we get rid of the halogens category, concerns have been raised that there is no other established basis to split the nonmetals in two. To alleviate these concerns I've cited several sources referring to:
In conclusion, splitting the nonmetals into the categories of reactive nonmetals, and highly reactive metals (O, F, Cl, Br) would be consistent with, and supported by the literature. Sandbh ( talk) 09:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Subcategorise the nonmetals according to their molecular structures:
The lines of demarcation are apparent. Structure generally corresponds to metallishness: Metals generally have high coordination numbers (CNs); metalloids have intermediate CNs; and nonmetals have low CNs, culminating in the noble gases with CN = 0. There are no issues with white P v black P; both are polyatomic.
The terms 'diatomic' and 'polyatomic' are both found in the nonmetal literature: 'Figure 3.2 shows seven nonmetal elements that can exist as diatomic molecules. Atoms of a smaller number of elements can form polyatomic molecules. Two examples shown in Figure 3.2 are phosphorus, which can form P4 (read as "P-four"), and sulfur, which can form S8 (read as "S-eight")." (Miller T 1987, Chemistry: a basic introduction, 4th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, p. 62)
We have probably all seen periodic tables that highlight the molecular structures of the non-metals (S8, O2 etc).
A similar categorisation pattern can be seen going rightwards across the standard form of the periodic table. Whereas most metals crystallise in close-packed structures with high coordination numbers (8+ to 12, or higher), the poor metals have more complex structures, with lower coordination numbers (4+ to 6+). This can be attributed to the influence of partially covalent bonding in their crystal structures, which dictates fewer nearest neighbours.
It is not a perfect categorisation. But it is simple, and interesting (in my view). Sandbh ( talk) 01:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
When I don't reply for a few days, it means, I'm taking a broader perspective. It took me a few days to realize that I'm still very doubtful about this.
Like, I started top listen to a lot of indie music much (don't care about trendiness, just like it), but that doesn't mean I would use an indie song to illustrate the music article. That kind of a close second.
Not trying to match s-block? good then (I just like it, nothing more)
"the 'established organization' of splitting the non-noble nonmetals into two categories." I really really feel this doesn't count as a good argument, but I'm not sure if I can prove it. I do understand your point, not just reject it. But I think that if a border isn't clear (since there are a few disputable ways to break 'em in two), it's not a reason to draw one. Moreover, relatively arbitrarily. Ah, I had said I would've been poor at it.
"Here's an outline of each sub-category": here's another one coming. Okay, you can tell me, but you surely won't put it into the template, and how will then the less acknowledged readers get the point apart from main allotrope structure itself?
And this, I think, is why we don't have a common opinion. I want to make it reader-friendly, as reader-friendly as possible, and you want to organize it at your best, and you're good at that. As a guy who could explain you the theory behind this di-/polyatomism, I find it very good (that's how you got the close second, yeah, a good explanation!). As an average reader who hadn't taken in this discussion, I would say, wtf? so num of atoms matters now? why not Hungarian names?
My belief is: If we were writing a book, that, given an appropriate explanation is also there, would be fine and good. A book is not designed for looking through, so this wtfs wouldn't be a problem, as a reader would stay on anyway and we could explain him the point. (The inner me is not opposed to breaking them in two in general, when a reader has a few mins to get the point) Wikipedia is, though, designed for looking though, and even if not, is used for it. This means we have to be as laconic as possible. That's what I don't like about it. A reader won't be thinking. Won't be able to get the point w/o chem education.
Summarizing: He'll be surprised about this previously unseen categorization. Or wtfing. Or a combination. Don't want any of three.
(P.S. If we already have boundary problems, it doesn't mean we should add new. Especially when this can be avoided.)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 20:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I think my option 10 sandbox draft may be ready, barring any fine-tuning edits. The draft covers and explains, at least to my initial satisfaction, the similarities and differences within and across each of the proposed categories of polyatomic, diatomic and monatomic nonmetal. Would the next step be to call for a vote on option 10? Is there any protocol I need to observe in conducting such a vote? I presume that I should give a preamble setting out the background to the vote; that votes are given as Support or Oppose; and that the majority carries the day? Sandbh ( talk) 11:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Periodic table (nonmetals variant)}}
.
Double sharp (
talk) 12:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
@Sandbh: You are starting once again to convince me. :-) Support. Double sharp ( talk) 13:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the only other plausible candidate for being called a metalloid, and I would be interested in hearing what you (Sandbh) think about Se. Double sharp ( talk) 13:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
What should we colour it as? (See Talk:Flerovium.) Double sharp ( talk) 14:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone looking here, BTW? (This post has two objectives in mind: firstly to "bump" the whole section so it won't get archived for a while longer, and secondly because saying this seemed to make discussion come in the "Predictions" subsection, so I think I should try it again to tie up this particular loose end.) Double sharp ( talk) 14:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
When we get our new scheme to go live, we need to:
Double sharp ( talk) 09:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
We've been discussing the categories of our periodic table since June last year—nearly 11 months now. The thread originated with sorting out the categorisation of Po (now agreed to be better as a metal) and At (now agreed to be better as a metalloid). It then flowed into what to do about the halogen category, given the change in category of At, and if we could come up with something more useful than the nondescript 'other nonmetal' category.
After working through numerous suggestions, YBG proposed that any new categorisation scheme be clear ('The criterion for division should be easily explained'); unambiguous ('It should be relatively obvious which category each element fits into'); and meaningful ('The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing. There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopaedia article.').
Option 10 divides the nonmetals into the three categories of polyatomic nonmetal (C, P, S, Se); diatomic nonmetal (H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I); and noble gas (all of which are monatomic). A fully sourced draft rewrite of the nonmetal article, using these proposed categories, can be found here. A draft periodic table template, which includes the two proposed (new) nonmetal categories, can be found at {{ periodic table (nonmetals variant)}}. The template includes group names so that the halogens, for example, can (still) be identified. Option 10, in my view, meets all three of YBG's criteria quite well. If it gets up it will unclog the astatine log jam and result in our first ever fully categorised periodic table continuum.
Please vote.
Discussion on option 10 (concluded)
|
---|
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it. |
I'm starting this thread here in order to keep the archive clock ticking on the massive parent thread. There are four votes in support of this option, which was to divide the nonmetals (aside from the noble gases) into polyatomic and diatomic subcategories, and to show astatine as a metalloid: myself, DePiep, YBG and Double sharp. A couple of recently discovered references have reminded me to seek to progress option 10. The first ref was Karkhanavala (1973. p. 61) who, in writing about heats of atomization, commented in part that, '…the differences are mainly in the p-block elements of the p3 to p5 configurations which form the di- and poly-atomic molecules.' There is nothing new in this author's observation. I was just struck by the reference to diatomic and polyatomic molecules in groups 13–17, in one sentence. The second reference was Brady and Senese (2009, pp. 858–63) who discuss, at some length, why the diatomic nonmetals form diatomic molecules (due to their electronic configuration, or small size which facilitates pi bonds) and why the remaining nonmetals, not counting the noble gases, form more complex structures (electronic configuration, or larger size: not so good at pi bonds; prefer sigma bonds). I don’t recall seeing such a well illustrated and relatively detailed explanation in any other chemistry textbook. Anyway, here are my intended and proposed actions, and questions as to the way ahead.
Comments welcome. Sandbh ( talk) 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
While I agree with the idea of more widely advertising the vote, the last time we tried that with WP Chemistry, it went extremely well indeed (not). Double sharp ( talk) 16:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Megathanks to Sandbh for summarizing the megadiscussion. WP:WikiThanks to DePiep for thinking through what would need to change. And thank you both (and Double sharp) for your patience and willingness to take my suggestions. I have glanced through the sandbox PT, and it looks like it is ready for prime time. YBG ( talk) 06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC) In answer to the question above, I do think it would be good to advertise this discussion and the vote broadly, mostly because the discussion has been between a relatively small number of people. However, if invitations have been posted elsewhere without much response, then I'd say that is good enough. Any new advertising should clearly point to the megadiscussion summary and specifically request that interested parties vote in the appropriate place. It would be good to summarize the sorts of outreach that have been done to add credence to the relatively small number of votes. (By the way, I only count three (not four) formal votes that Support the change -- YBG, Sandbh, and DePiep.) YBG ( talk) 06:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Megadiscussion summaryThis is a summary of the parent thread discussion, as to the pros and cons of option 10. The discussion originated with sorting out the categorisation of polonium (now agreed to be better shown as a metal) and astatine (now agreed to be better shown as a metalloid). It then flowed into what to do about the halogen category, given the change in category of astatine, and if we could come up with something more useful than the nondescript 'other nonmetal' category. We considered at least ten options: Along the way concerns and observations were presented about:
YBG subsequently proposed that any new categorisation scheme be (a) clear—'The criterion for division should be easily explained'; (b) unambiguous—'It should be relatively obvious which category each element fits into'; and (c) meaningful—'The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing. There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopaedia article.' Option 10 divides the nonmetals into the three categories of polyatomic nonmetal (C, P, S, Se); diatomic nonmetal (H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I); and noble gas (all of which are monatomic). A fully sourced draft rewrite of the nonmetal article, using these proposed categories, can be found here. A draft periodic table template, which includes the two proposed (new) nonmetal categories, can be found at {{ periodic table (nonmetals variant)/sandbox}}. The template includes group names so that the halogens, for example, can (still) be identified. Option 10's pros (e.g. meets YBG's criteria; consistent with, and anchored in, fundamental atomic and electronic properties discussed in the literature) are thought to outweigh any concerns (e.g. 5 OR v 13 literature; 6 v 16 two subcategories; 17 boundaries v 14 no perfection; 19 v YBG's criteria). The previous sentence is a high-level summary and will not necessarily cover all aspects and nuances of this massive discussion. Sandbh ( talk) 06:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC) HAHAHAHA just checked and apparently in mid-March the massive parent thread already had 189 replies (is this a record?) Double sharp ( talk) 17:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, does this discussion also sets in stone things we agreed on earlier (up the page)? Like group 12 being TM for practical purposes and such?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 10:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this the place where you intended to have the talk? If not, olease copy wherever it belongs to. I'll manage to track :)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 04:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Agree with most of the above, except the nonmetal page. (Please don't take it as a personal attack.) I don't think Sandbh's draft is good enough. I mean, have a look at the metal page. It talks about metals and what makes them metals in first place. It is not concerned with how one can classify them, it is a secondary question for the "metal" topic. Really, breaking the metals set into TMs, alkali metals, etc. is a classification thing. That is why there are some groupings given there ( Metal#Categories), often overlapping, and the discussion of those doesn't have a leading role there. It's the way it should be. Analogously it is for the nonmetals. But in the draft, most of description is in the categories part, cut in three. Again, compare with metal. Also, about 117. Can anyone justify labeling it as whatever (predicted) per RSes? (Maybe there are such sources, just want to be sure)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
For the new category scheme, we also need a general disambiguation term (
WP:DAB). "Option 10" is just for this talk process really. It needs to be international. Because: |
If and when option 10 is accepted here at en: WT:ELEM, we want to implement the consequences in en:wp. The decision (consensus) on option 10 is science & source based; the implementation from there is en:wiki-based. This subsection only pertains to the wiki-implementation: just new bg-colors and wikilinks (two each). Other talk, especially including any new categorisation of elements, is science so is not here.
Evolved discussions and listings now concluded
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- DePiep ( talk) 23:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 13:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
We need colors for
Color decisions:
- DePiep ( talk) 17:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Standard {{ Periodic table legend}}s: {{Periodic table legend|theme1=Category-polyatomic|predicted1=no}}
Compact: {{Periodic table legend|theme1=Category-polyatomic compact|predicted1=no}} Janet left step: {{Periodic table legend|theme1=Janet category compact/sandbox}}
Do we need colors for predicted polyatomic nonmetals and predicted diatomic nonmetals? Are there any such elements? - DePiep ( talk) 13:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Copy-pasted the template from above, so doesn't reflect the current wikicode, but it's a good idea of what it would look like. I didn't add the predicted colours YET for the SHEs and UHEs (the latter not shown). See next section: we'll soon have to deal with this so we can roll the new option 10 scheme out to the extended periodic table pages too.
{| class="collapsible" style="width:100%;background:#fff;font-size:88%;border: 1px solid #a2a9b1;" |- ! colspan="32" | {{tnavbar-collapsible|[[Periodic table]]|Compact periodic table}} |- | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Hydrogen|H]] | width="3.125%" colspan="30" | | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Helium|He]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Lithium|Li]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Beryllium|Be]] | colspan="24" | |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Boron|B]] |style="background-color:#a1ffc3"|[[Carbon|C]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Nitrogen|N]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Oxygen|O]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Fluorine|F]] |style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Neon|Ne]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Sodium|Na]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Magnesium|Mg]] | colspan="24" | |style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Aluminium|Al]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Silicon|Si]] |style="background-color:#a1ffc3"|[[Phosphorus|P]] |style="background-color:#a1ffc3"|[[Sulfur|S]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Chlorine|Cl]] |style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Argon|Ar]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Potassium|K]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Calcium|Ca]] | colspan="14" | |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Scandium|Sc]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Titanium|Ti]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Vanadium|V]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Chromium|Cr]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Manganese|Mn]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Iron|Fe]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Cobalt|Co]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Nickel|Ni]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Copper|Cu]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Zinc|Zn]] |style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Gallium|Ga]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Germanium|Ge]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Arsenic|As]] |style="background-color:#a1ffc3"|[[Selenium|Se]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Bromine|Br]] |style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Krypton|Kr]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Rubidium|Rb]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Strontium|Sr]] | colspan="14" | |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Yttrium|Y]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Zirconium|Zr]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Niobium|Nb]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Molybdenum|Mo]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Technetium|Tc]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Ruthenium|Ru]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rhodium|Rh]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Palladium|Pd]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Silver|Ag]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Cadmium|Cd]] |style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Indium|In]] |style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Tin|Sn]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Antimony|Sb]] |style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Tellurium|Te]] |style="background-color:#eaffa1"|[[Iodine|I]] |style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Xenon|Xe]] |- | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Caesium|Cs]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Barium|Ba]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Lanthanum |La]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Cerium|Ce]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Praseodymium|Pr]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Neodymium|Nd]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Promethium|Pm]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Samarium|Sm]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Europium|Eu]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Gadolinium|Gd]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Terbium|Tb]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Dysprosium|Dy]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Holmium|Ho]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Erbium|Er]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Thulium|Tm]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Ytterbium|Yb]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Lutetium|Lu]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Hafnium|Hf]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Tantalum|Ta]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Tungsten|W]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rhenium|Re]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Osmium|Os]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Iridium|Ir]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Platinum|Pt]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Gold|Au]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Mercury (element)|Hg]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Thallium|Tl]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Lead|Pb]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Bismuth |Bi]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Polonium|Po]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Astatine|At]] | width="3.125%" style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Radon|Rn]] |- |style="background-color:#ff6666"|[[Francium|Fr]] |style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Radium|Ra]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Actinium|Ac]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Thorium|Th]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Protactinium|Pa]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Uranium|U]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Neptunium|Np]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Plutonium|Pu]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Americium|Am]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Curium|Cm]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Berkelium|Bk]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Californium|Cf]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Einsteinium|Es]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Fermium|Fm]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Mendelevium|Md]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Nobelium|No]] |style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Lawrencium|Lr]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rutherfordium|Rf]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Dubnium|Db]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Seaborgium|Sg]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Bohrium|Bh]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Hassium|Hs]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Meitnerium|Mt]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Darmstadtium|Ds]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Roentgenium|Rg]] |style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Copernicium|Cn]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Ununtrium|Uut]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Flerovium|Fl]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Ununpentium|Uup]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Livermorium|Lv]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Ununseptium|Uus]] |style="background-color:#e8e8e8"|[[Ununoctium|Uuo]] |- | colspan="32" | {| border="1" rules="all" style="border-collapse:collapse;" | style="background-color:#ff6666" width="9%"|[[Alkali metal]] | style="background-color:#ffdead" width="9%"|[[Alkaline earth metal]] | style="background-color:#ffbfff" width="9%"|[[Lanthanide]] | style="background-color:#ff99cc" width="9%"|[[Actinide]] | style="background-color:#ffc0c0" width="9%"|[[Transition metal]] | style="background-color:#cccccc" width="9%"|[[Poor metal]] | style="background-color:#cccc99" width="9%"|[[Metalloid]] | style="background-color:#a1ffc3" width="9%"|[[Polyatomic nonmetal]] | style="background-color:#eaffa1" width="9%"|[[Diatomic nonmetal]] | style="background-color:#c0ffff" width="9%"|[[Noble gas]] | style="background-color:#e8e8e8" width="10%"|Unknown chemical properties |} |- ! colspan="32" | {| border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" | style="background-color:#c9c9ff" |'''[[Periodic table (large version)|Large version]]''' |} |} Double sharp ( talk) 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC) |
Below is a list of todo's for implementation. Please maintain as a list; #discuss way below. - DePiep ( talk) 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Decisions made by Option 10, 17 August 2013:
Polyatomic nonmetal #a1ffc3 |
Diatomic nonmetal #e7ff8f |
Polyatomic nonmetal (predicted) #d0ffe1 |
Diatomic nonmetal (predicted) #f2ffc2 |
(polyatomic)
" -- As of August 15, 2013 22:00 UTC.The "once accepted, what to do" thing. I believe the to-be-accepted scheme, option 10 or if even it were whatever else, does not need to be justified in the nonmetal article. Again, look at metal (a reasonably good article, though not a GA). It does not justify how we break them in the scheme. It just describes metals. The nonmetal article could use the same.
tl;dr Regardless if the article nonmetal will be changed or not, the other changes can go live.-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 04:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Trouble ahead, our earlier success bites back. See for example File:Electron shell 001 Hydrogen - no label.svg, used in the infobox. Option 10 says it should turn yellow (diatomic nonmetal). But these images are used in dozens of wikis, all using the old categories (so H should stay green for their "other nonmetal" usage, like in ca:S'està editant Plantilla:Hidrogen). Our earlier success (the element infobox+categorisation) has spread so widely, we cannot edit commons any more :-). - DePiep ( talk) 13:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
|electron shell image=Electron shell 001 Hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal) - no label.svg
This template needs its own attention. Question: do we color "nonmetal", or do we separate "diatomic", "polyatomic"? The same question exists today, pre-decision (nonmetal or separate "halogen", "other nonmetal"?). Confusing is, until today, that the green color "nonmetal" equals "other nonmetal" (btw, same as in Template:infobox hydrogen today)
I am developing the
todo edits page, for when
option 10 is decided. A great job if you can get it, and a nice one with the right fellows around here. Still, I'd like to have a checking eye. Could anyone (everyone) take a look at that page, and try your favorite page (template, image, ...)? Do you get the change? Late disappointments and errors are worse, really worse.
Here is an anecdote. I did preparation edits in /sandboxes, using find-&-replace on 'Halogen' -> 'diatomic metal'. Great not? Later on I found that [[Halogen|group 17]]
should stay halogen. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There were two replies, one concise and one more elaborate. The concise one was from Eric Scerri, who has been a long-standing member of the list: 'I am happy to support your proposed Wiki reform as to how to treat non-metals.' The elaborate comment, together with my original post and subsequent reply, went as follows.
>Wikipedia is proposing to change its periodic table nonmetal categories. Currently these are:
>Other nonmetals : H, C, N, O, P. S, Se
>Halogens: F, Cl, Br, I, At
>Noble gases: He, Ne etc
>
>See, for example <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Periodic_table>
>
>The proposed subcategories are:
>
>Diatomic nonmetals: H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I
>Polyatomic nonmetals: C, P, S, Se
>Noble gases: no change
>
>See <
/info/en/?search=Template:Periodic_table_%28nonmetals_variant%29/sandbox>
>
>Note, in particular, that the halogens are retained (as a group, rather than as a nonmetal subcategory).
>
>Reasons for the proposed change are (a) dissatisfaction with the blandness, low information content, and left-over nature of the term ‘other nonmetals’; and (b) to accommodate astatine being shown as a metalloid.
>
>The proposed division into polyatomic and diatomic nonmetals is thought to be clear (easily explained), unambiguous (easily discerned) and meaningful (sufficient similarities and differences within and between each subcategory). A draft rewrite of the nonmetal article, using these proposed categories, can be found here:
/info/en/?search=User:Sandbh/sandbox
>
>Comments are welcome and can be posted here or on Wikipedia, at
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements See item 12, ‘Implementing option 10.’ Further, item 12.1 'Megadiscussion summary' gives a précis of the other nine options that were considered, and concerns and observations raised along the way. You may also like to vote in support of (Support) or opposition to (Oppose) this proposal: see item 1.7, 'Vote: Proposal to implement option 10'. You do not need a Wikipedia account to post comments to Wikipedia or to lodge a vote; however your IP address will show on the applicable Wikipedia page, if you do. (There are quite a few "IP editors" as they are called, who do just that rather than create a Wikipedia account.)
>
>Declaration: I am a member of the Wikipedia 'Elements' Project, in whose talk page the above proposal (which I put forward) has been progressed.
a) is good, and makes the proposed change worthwhile.
I'm not too excited about the category of polyatomic nonmetal, but that doesn't matter much.
>>On behalf of the Wikipedia 'Elements' Project, many thanks for your response.
General comments...
The categorization is soft, as you note. I think it would be good to be upfront with that -- right at the start of the intro. The idea of metals and nonmetals is useful -- and it is clear at the edges. The more you go on, the less clear it becomes. The page spends a lot of time dealing with that, justifying or explaining this or that, and noting special cases. By being upfront that the whole scheme is somewhat arbitrary, i think it would make the whole page easier.
>>Sound advice; will see what I can do.
The Categories section starts with
"Nonmetals have structures in which each atom usually forms (8 - N) bonds
with (8 - N) nearest neighbours, where N is the applicable group number."
First, that leads to the prediction that halogens form -9 bonds. :-) (There were advantages of the old system for numbering groups.)
>>Headslap! Still stuck in the boomer era :)
Rather than "fix" the formula, I think it might be better to use the PT directly. Elements in the right hand group form zero bonds, elements in the group one in "usually" form 1 bond (in the same sense you meant it above.) Less formula, more PT. (I'm assuming you don't want to get in to valence electrons at this point.)
>>I see that the 8-N rule is sometimes regarded as not applying to metals given their much higher coordination numbers, or that it has sometimes been expressed as the 18-N rule, or that N is sometimes instead taken as the number of outer electrons. All this points to a need to refine the wording of this section, as you observed.
Second, that intro statement to that section gives equal importance to two ideas: number of bonds and number of neighbors. I don't think they are of equal importance at all. Bond number is fundamental -- and comes from the PT. Neighbor number is complicated. I gave a double take when you talked about C having three neighbors, and worried about N only having one. Yes, graphite may be the standard state of C, but as you note that is somewhat arbitrary. Associating three as a key number for C seems odd, even confusing. (And it's not exactly true, even for graphite. There is interaction between C in different planes.)
>>I'll look at the wording here. The standard state is certainly arbitrary when it comes to (white) P, this being the most unstable and reactive form whereas all the other standard states of the elements, including graphite, are in their most thermodynamically stable forms at ambient conditions. Mention of the peculiar structure of graphite could be elaborated to better explain how each atom completes its octet e.g., 'Graphite's honeycomb network violates the 8-N rule (carbon is three-bonded), but pi-bonding satisfies the octet rule.'
The topic is supposed to be something fundamental about the PT. Discussing the normal bonding number (from the group number) is good. Neighbor number is complicated, requiring introducing the more complex ideas of multiple bonds -- which really have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
>>From my reading of the literature, the three concepts of normal bonding number, neighbour number, and multiple bonds are more or less interrelated. This can be seen in the left-right reduction across the PT in numbers of nearest neighbours in elemental structures, and in declining normal bonding numbers amongst the structures of the metalloids and nonmetals. Same thing happens going down the p-block e.g. O diatomic, S, Se, and Te polyatomic, and Po metallic (six neighbours). Chemistry text books usually discuss neighbour numbers when describing the p-block groups, starting with the lightest member of each group and then going down the group. They also usually mention the ability of N and O, and sometimes the ability of C, to "dodge" the 8-N rule on account of the relatively small size of their atoms faciliating pi bonding. As I understand it, these L-R and top-down patterns, are, or are related to, fundamental periodic trends arising out of the interaction of atomic and electronic properties. So I'd be hesitant to exclude discussion of neighbour numbers and multiple bonds, whilst fully acknowledging there is room to better explain these things and their relevance.
>>thanks again for all your comments
End of comments and my reply. Sandbh ( talk) 11:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Anybody had a look at this book yet? In chapter 10 'From missing elements to synthetic elements' Scerri discusses the impact of relativistic effects on elements 104 onwards. He notes that such effects peak in period 6 at gold---dubbed the 'gold maximum phenomenon' by Pyykkö. In period 7 he says that calculations by others (Schwerdtfeger & Seth 1998) have shown that the maximum relativistic effect should take place at element 112 (and drop away 'sharply' thereafter). He goes on to write that E112 and E114, contrary to initial predictions and experiments, behave more or less as expected for their place in the period table (E112 per Zn, Cd, Hg; E114 as eka-lead), and that, (again) contrary to earlier speculation, all of this would suggest that the chemistry of E115+ should behave as expected for their periodic table positions. He concludes this chapter by saying, 'This seems to be further testament to the underyling fundamental nature of the periodic law, which continues to stand firm against the threats from quantum mechanics and relativity combined together.' Sandbh ( talk) 01:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
O Sandbh, hast thou finished thy reading of the other Fricke paper with the HSAB principles that I gavest thou the link to? For I would fain be hearing thy comments once again and would rather not overburden the parent massively bloated 2/3-page-taking-up thread. (Feel free to continue reading from there.) Double sharp ( talk) 07:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
DePiep, please help me beautify the colours. :-) Double sharp ( talk) 11:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I should really check 171's properties again, as it's very debatable what its structure is like! Double sharp ( talk) 05:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to reform the periodic table, may I ask people here to consider removing the tons of categories we already have? Absolutely all the periodic tables I've seen only give one category for metals, and I see no reason to have 6, or 7 categories for them. Here are my proposals; feel free to comment:
Here is how it would look like. Nergaal ( talk) 17:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
g p |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | 113 | Fl | 115 | Lv | 117 | 118 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | 119 | 120 | * | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
* | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@Nergaal, you colour 171 as a metalloid here, I wonder why? (I'm also not very sure about it?) Double sharp ( talk) 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
This post was prompted by Nergaal's request for less categories. It seems to me that the principles by which we categorise the elements are as follows. 1. Start with the basic categories of metals, metalloids, and nonmetals. 2. Subcategorise thereafter to show (a) gradations in metallic character; or (b) other natural distinctions. 3. Aim to achieve an engaging taxonomy, one that is neither excessively fine-grained nor parsimonious.
I think this is why we divide the s-block metals, the inner transition metals, and the non-noble nonmetals into two subcategories apiece. Certainly, before I became an editor, I was captivated by the Wikipedia categorisation scheme, having never seen anything quite as engaging, as far as I can recall, in older sources.
Something else occurred to me about the proposed polyatomic and diatomic subcategories. Texts that discuss the properties of the representative elements usually do so on a group by group basis. Invariably they start with the lightest member and then go down the group. And usually in the case of nonmetals the structure of each element is mentioned e.g. diatomic N with its triple bond resulting in superficially low reactivity, and polyatomic P with its highly strained and reactive structure and, if you're lucky, the much more stable and more metallic black allotrope with its curious polyatomic layered structure. So, the diatomic, polyatomic or monatomic structures of nonmetals form a natural part of such discourses which, in hindsight, is quite neat. Sandbh ( talk) 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
A few of the IP editors have raised the question of mixed category elements. There is an example in the German Wikipedia, here. Se is shown as metalle/halbmetalle; At is shown as metalle/halogene. We (Double Sharp, R8R, DePiep and I) discussed the idea of mixed category elements a while ago. I like them as way of solving thorny categorization questions and avoiding the need for categorisation contortions in order to get every one of the elements into just one our current ten categories. R8R didn't like them for for their lack of clarity; Double sharp didn't like them either; DePiep suggested they could imply a diagonal relationship that may not be there. What's got me going about this again has been the discussions about (1) poor metals & Al: poor metals and where or if Al fits into this category; (2) group 3 and REM: what to about group 3 and Sc, Y, La, Ac, Lu, Lr, and the proposed rare earth category; and (3) Metallicity: the recent posts by the IP editors re the metallicity of the elements.
Before I do much more work re-looking at the possibility of mixed category elements, I'd like to hear what people currently think about this idea. Sandbh ( talk) 11:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
|
transition metal, so as to do away with much categorisation angst.
Sandbh (
talk) 02:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that mixed category is really good solution for too metalloidal nonmetals such as C or Se and it will be good if it will be implied. It could be also implied for poor (chemically) transition metals (such as Au and Pt), which have higher electronegativity in Pauling scale than phosphorus and hydrogen and form relatively stable monoanions. Al and Be are in the poorer chemically group of metals. Group 12 metals are also physically and chemically rather poor.
Lu really looks not like a lanthanoid according to these links. Its popular position is even misleading, maybe erroneous. Lu should be placed below Y. It is quite clear from the papers. Discussion about Lu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lutetium
And link from the discussion does not work... Interesting...
79.191.180.224 ( talk) 18:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
@ DePiep: Do you have any thoughts as to a better way to depict mixed category elements, should such a thing eventuate? I'm sure there are other ways to do this besides stripes (which I find to be quite garish), and diagonals. Sandbh ( talk) 01:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Before choosing a striping pattern, let's find as many options as possible.
Currently, only pre-known groups, categories, and the element-self page can be marked this way. And only in the micro PT (!). After expanding the options
|mark=1,15,21,33
.Saves us from having to pre-define any mixing, any striping. Discussion on what to "mix", and on which page, in which detail -- all becomes more of a content discussion (not a question of how to squeeze it wikitechnically into PT).
From these elements, C, Se and P are most metallic, next are: I, S, then H, Rn.
Alkali metals | Alkaline earth metals | Lanthanides | Actinides | Transition metals | Post-transition metals | Metalloids | Other nonmetals | Halogens | Noble gases |
194.29.130.244 ( talk) 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
83.6.21.120 ( talk) 22:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||||||||
|
Oh come on, people.
You're talking about how to define stripees, but haven't shown they're needed in first place.
Stripees are not good. For pros maybe, but not for a general reader.
Many, many, many people, maybe half of them or even more are people who can rate astatine negatively just because it doesn't have the sodium astatide formula. If I were talking to a chem professor, I would mention those nuances. Not in a general table, ever.
And remember, metalloids are already a transition class. Why have a transition class between a normal class and a transition class?
Most people don't even read table legends, in general, remember that.
It is a pity that there is no stripping "transition metal + poor metal" It's not. To get the point with aurides and stuff, you would need to knopw it in first place. Or have some real understanding in chemistry.
Most people think of aluminum as of a metal. Those who do normally think of it as one similar to gallium and indium rather than AMs or AEMs.
Draw a general picture, don't go into details unless it is expected (for example, how about a near metalloid article? it could take some info from metalloid info, we could give it a few links in some of our articles and we could treat it as a group like platinum group metals).
KISS.
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||||||||
|
We can go even further.
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | ||||
|
-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
About third periodic table: "Near-metalloids" have too alien properties to just count them along with strong nonmetals. They are a class themselves. Carbon is closer to boron or silicon than to fluorine. Selenium is more similar to tellurium than to chlorine, phosphorus to arsenic than to oxygen. Iodine is poorer (volatile and diatomic) near-metalloid, radon and hydrogen also shows some non-nonmetallic properties in their chemistry. Sulfur is on the border of so-called "near-metalloids" and nonmetals.
Noble gases are a class of nonmetals. Idea of splitting to reactive nonmetals and noble gases is poor.
I want to separate oddities such as carbon and selenium from strong, typical nonmetals. They just have too marked metallic properties, which are in contast of the general picture of a nonmetal (but nonmetallic character is still greater than metallic). Sometimes (by using metal-nonmetal dividing line) even more metallic elements (B, Si, As, Te, At) are counted as nonmetals.
83.31.138.237 ( talk) 23:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I am talking (in fact) about the lack of near-metalloids in third periodic table on this page. Many properties of near-metalloids are worth to mark. They can for example: have very high melting, boiling or sublimation points, be very hard, really well conductive, look metal-like, be good semiconductors.
83.31.138.237 ( talk) 23:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm now satisifed(!) that aluminium does qualify as a poor metal, whereas beryllium doesn't. A poor metal is a physically weak metal that shows significant nonmetallic chemistry. Beryllium and aluminium both show significant nonmetallic chemistry. However beryllium is pretty strong whereas aluminium isn't. Here are some unattributed snippets from Google Books illustrating the difference:
There are plenty more like that.
In conclusion, and as I see it: Be = alkaline earth; Al = poor; Group 3 (Sc, Y, Lu, Lr) = marginal TMs; La–Yb = lanthanides; Ac–No = actinides. We keep the alkali metal and alkaline earth categories. Further distinctions as to the non-metallic character of metals (e.g. Au) or the metallic character of nonmetals (e.g. H, C, Se) can be made in the articles for the respective elements. I think the rare earths are better regarded as an uber-category comprising the first three members of group 3 + the lanthanides.
With respect, if the IP editors want to make a case for a different categorisation scheme that includes e.g. near metalloids then they need to do a write up that (a) satisfies the YBG rules; and (b) is fully referenced, as per the current nonmetal article. The YBG rules are that any new categorisation scheme be clear ('The criterion for division should be easily explained'); unambiguous ('It should be relatively obvious which category each element fits into'); and meaningful ('The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing. There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopaedia article.'). Sandbh ( talk) 12:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
194.29.130.244 ( talk) 17:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The chief ones we need to worry about are E117 and E118. (E171 is treading on dangerous ground, assuming based on properties similar to I2 that it would form (171)2, but I think we've sorted that one out. And E172 is a very good noble gas, though it's probably actually a noble liquid or solid.) IP, I want your comments, please... ;-)
I've given quotes from Fricke below, to supplement the material from the articles ( ununseptium, ununoctium, period 9 element).
(Fricke 1974) "Element 117. (eka-astatine) is expected to have little similarity to what one usually calls a halogen, mainly because its electron affinity will be very small. Cunningham (96) predicted its value as 2.6 eV, whereas the calculations of Waber, Cromer and Liberman (54) gave a value of only 1.8 eV. As a result of this small electron affinity, and from extrapolations of the chemical properties of the lighter halogen homologs, all authors agree that the +3 oxidation state should be at least as important as the −1 state, and possibly more so. To take an example, element 117 might resemble Au(+3) in its ion-exchange behavior with halide media. Cunningham (96) describes the solid element 117 as having a semimetallic appearence."
(1971) "Occupation of the 7p3/2 subshell begins at Z = 115 with a binding energy which is only half as large as that of the 7p1/2 electrons, so that the elements E115, E116 and E117 will have +1, +2 and +3, respective1y, as their normal oxidation state. The higher oxidation states will be possible only in the presence of strong oxidizers. An interesting question is whether element E117 which is in the chemical group of the halogens would form the -1 anion. Cunningham predicted a electron affinity of 2.6 eV whereas the calculations of Waber, Cromer and Liberman calculated a value of only 1.8 eV. Cunningham describes the solid element El17 to have a semi-metallic appearance. It should form stable oxyions of the (III), (V), and (VII) states and stable interhalogen compounds. Because of the small electron affinity it might not exhibit the -1 oxidation state, which is even further suggested by the smaller value calculated by Waber et al. Certainly it will be a very soft base compared with fluoride or chloride which have a electron affinity of 4 eV resp. 3 eV."
(Fricke 1974) "A. V. Grosse wrote a prophetie article (95) in 1965 before the nuclear theorists began to publish their findings concerning the island of stability. In this paper he gave detailed predictions of the physical and chemieal properties of element 118 (eka-radon), the next rare gas. He pointed out that eka-radon would be the most electropositive of the rare gases. In addition to the oxides and fluorides shown by Kr and Xe, he predicted that 118 would be likely to form a noble gas-chlorine bond. These very first extrapolations into the region of superheavy elements have been fully confirmed by the calculations, because the first ionization potentials turn out to be much lower than in all the other noble gases. Independently Grosse (95) and Cunningham (96) found that the expected boiling point of liquid element 118 is about −15 °C, so that it will be nearly a "noble fluid". Because of its large atornic number it will, of course, be much denser than all the other noble gases. But, in general, the chemical behavior of element 118 will be more like that of a normal element, with many possible oxidation states like +2 and +4; +6 will be less important because of the strang binding of the p1/2 electrons. It will continue the trend towards chernical reactivity first observed in xenon."
(1971) "The "noble gas" at Z = 118 will be a very weak noble gas in the sense of He and Ar but as well in comparison to Xe and Rn. The ionization energy is so small that normal covalent bondings are expected with oxidation states of 4 and 6. The extrapolation of Cunningham [35] expects a boiling point of −15 °C so that it will be nearly a "noble fluid"..."
(1971) "Previous analysis by Waber, following an informal discussion with Fano, indicated that negative ions of the noble gases would have configurations such as np5 (n + 1)s2. The spectra of such species have been found at the National Bureau of Standards following electron bombardment of the noble gases. It would be expected that E118 could readily form such anions. Calculations have not confirmed the likelihood of such species. Independently Grosse and Cunningham found that the expected boiling point of liquid E1l8 is about -15°C, so that it will be nearly a "noble fluid". It might be predicted as well that the crystalline form would be much denser than the other noble gases. That is, the bonding in solid E118 would be stronger than given by van der Waals forces. These predictions from systematic continuation are supported by the calculation. Its first ionization energy is small, only 9 eV, and the strongly split p shell giving rise to frontier orbitals at the surface of the atom suggest that E118 will be more a normal element with many possible compounds than a noble element. Thus it will continue the trend towards chemical reactivity first observed in xenon."
(Fricke 1974; he says almost exactly the same thing in the other papers) "Element 171 is expected to have many possible oxidation states between −1 and +7, as the halogens do. Here again, the electron affinity will be high enough to form a hydrogen halide like H(171). Fricke et al. (56) calculated a value for the electron affinity of 3.0 eV, which is as high as the value of I−, so that (171)− will be quite a soft base."
(Fricke 1974; ditto) "Element 172 will be a noble gas with a closed p shell outside. The ionization energy of this element, as shown in Fig. 15, is very near to the value of Xe, so that it might be quite similar to this element. The only great difference between Xe and 172 is that element 172 is expected to be a liquid or even a solid at normal temperatures because of its large atomic weight. As indicated in connection with the noble gas 118, element 172 will tend to be a strong Lewis acid and hence compounds with F and O are expected, as has been demonstrated for xenon."
Double sharp ( talk) 12:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Element 85 (At, astatine) is now predicted to have metal band structure at normal conditions. E117 probably also will be a metal, what about E171 - I don't know, but it (for me) can also be a metal with high electron affinity, electronegativity and first ionisation energy.
What about apperance, volatility and conductivity of E118 and E172? Are they nonmetals, metalloids or even metals? It is really interesting, because, according to digonal trends, they should be at least metalloids.
79.191.55.205 ( talk) 15:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Near-metalloids (elements with general properties between metalloids and nonmetals) in the periodic table | |||||||||||
H | He | ||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||
K | Ca | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||
Rb | Sr | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||
Cs | Ba | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||
Fr | Ra | Cn | Uut | Fl | Uup | Lv | Uus | Uuo | |||
Periodic table
groups 1, 2, and 12 through 18:
|
It looks that some metalloidal chaaracter of hydrogen and carbon is really important for life. Water should be a gas, but has the relatively very low volatility quotient for a nonmetal oxide (10 protons and boiling point 373 K - about 37,5). Low electronegativity of hydrogen is really important. Carbon can form very stable very long chains, also at normal conditions. Typical nonmetals are oligomeric (polymeric sulfur is not so stable at normal conditions, most polymeric nonmetals are C, P and Se - typical near-metalloids).
Diamond is not so clearly nonmetallic. It has some properties of a metalloid (such as thermal conductivity, polymeric three-dimensional structure (like Si and Ge, even white Sn), extreme hardness, very high density (it has very low atomic number, but (anything?) in third period has significantly lower density) and some of a nonmetal (wide band gap makes it colorless and electrically non-conducting). It is itself near-metalloid. Fullerenes are another near-metalloidal allotrope (C60 is quite lustrous and has electrical conductivity and band gap similar to boron at normal conditions), but not metalloidal (they are like noble gas - relative volatility is very high, opposite to diamond and graphite), are not so much olygomeric (have larger number of atoms in molecule than P4, S8 and Se8, even some metalloids can form (not very stable) oligomers at low temperatures (As4, Sb4)). Polymeric allotropes (such as graphite and grey Se) tend to be more metallic than oligomeric.
Iodine is very oligomeric (diatomic) at STP. It is not so metalloidal property, but I2 looks metalloidal (quite bright grey when pure) and has much higher conductivity than more polyatomic sulfur.
It would be very curious if astatine can form diatomic (highly stable) and metallic (band structure!) allotrope at STP. It is probable that usually given boiling point of astatine is boiling point of diatomic allotrope, metal should not have so narrow liquid range.
C, P, S are "half-metalloids" (these elements have very stable polymeric, metal-like looking, relatively conductive allotropes), I (has metal-looking allotrope but volatile, diatomic and less conductive than "metallic" forms of C, P, Se), S, H, Rn are "quarter-metalloids". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.68.96 ( talk) 21:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
79.191.193.99 ( talk) 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
S, H, I, Rn are greater issue in the case of the level of metallicity than C, P, Se. It is hard to say which of these earlier four element is the most metallic.
Sulfur is olygomeric (S8), but C, Se and P not. It is also interesting what about carbon - there are calculations which say that less metallic carbyne (with band gap over 3 eV) is more thermodynamically stable than metalloidal graphite. Diamond is very stable, but less stable than graphite. In addition, carbon (not sulfur) has the largest number of allotropes and its allotropes can really dramatically differ.
What about fullerene C20? Is it polymeric or monomeric? Is it a gas at STP or at least a liquid? What is most oligomeric stable form of carbon? Can forms such as atomic (not metallic) carbon, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10 be stable and not to polymerize? Many properties of graphite, nanotubes or even diamond definately rule carbon out of "just nonmetallic" group of elements and move it to a group of typical half-metalloids.
Carbon, phosphorus, selenium and metalloids are polymeric elements, sulfur is rather oligomeric.
Cow city ( talk) 22:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
C, P and Se are rather "metalloids with advantage of nonmetallic properties" than "nonmetals".
There are also typical metalloids (B, Si, As, Te) and metalloids with advantage of metallic properties (Ge, Sb).
I don't think that naming carbon or selenium a metalloid is an error. But aluminium should not be named as metalloid, mainly because of its band structure.
194.29.134.246 ( talk) 11:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
But classifying only selenium as a metalloid is certainly an (very popular) error. We should specially pay attention on it.
Carbon with its melting point looks really "stupid" between "just nonmetals". Phosphorus or selenium have far much more (above 3000 K lower) melting points.
194.29.134.246 ( talk) 14:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that C, P and Se may be even vieved as "metalloids closer to nonmetals", when B, Si, As, Te are "typical metalloids" and Ge and Sb are "metalloids closer to metals". All most stable forms at STP form of metalloids are semiconductor or semimetals and polymers with higher melting points than nonmetals. They have shades of grey and metallic luster.
Sulfur is an anomaly. It should be only diatomic due to its position in PT. What about metallic sulfur chains inside nanotubes?
Carbon (even colorless insulating diamond) looks funny inside nonmetals in its melting point about 3900 K. However, it (probably) is totally unable to form C-O-C-O-C-O... chains at STP. It has a mixture properties of a metalloid and a nonmetal ("half-boron" and "half-nitrogen", BN is practically "inorganic carbon"), therefore is not an "only-nonmetal". Situation of P and Se is very similar, but their metalloidal properties can be other due to larger size of the atom and higher weight of their atoms. H and Rn are very electropositive gases with marked cationic chemistry.
All solid at STP "nonmetals" are not so good examples of nonmetals not because of their state of matter at STP, but their metal-like apperance and polymeric structure. Metalloids are polymers with not true metallic band structure at STP (semiconductor or semimetal), such as typical near-metalloids (which also can be achieved as quite conductive metal-like looking solids known as graphite, black phosphorus nd grey selenium). Metal-looking graphite is rare, usually we see almost black dull powder or microcrystalline form of it. Black P is very unpopular, grey Se is the most "admired" near-metalloid. Iodine is poor conductor and volatile, but also has a luster and is even quite bright is its pure form.
There is not a staircase between metalloids and nonmetals, but rather a straight diagonal (C, P, Se are half-metalloids and half-nonmetals).
Diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals classification tells us not about summaric metallic properties, but mainly about structure of elements with more traits of nonmetals than metals. Some of them are in fact halfly metalloidal and halfly nonmetallic and these elements are also more typical "near-metalloids" (or just "weak metalloids") than some others (C, P, Se vs H, S, I, Rn).
Maybe it is the time to "kick off" "weird" elements from the small group of nonmetals?
Diagonals and stripping would be better than clssification with diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals. New class "near-metalloids" looks even better than them. And for H, S, I, Rn should be stripping or diagonal near-metalloid - nonmetal. Weaker elements with advantage of nonmetallic traits (C, P, Se; H, S, I, Rn) will then be separated from "strong" nonmetals (He, N, O, F, Ne, Cl, Ar, Br, Kr, Xe).
95.49.107.75 ( talk) 02:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Again: carbon, phosphorus and selenium are not just nonmetals. They are suspiciously "metallic". First two elements are really rare seen in their shiny forms.
The substance (named at the page as "black phosphorus") looks like a grey metalloid with strong luster, even not black (on the page http://schools.birdville.k12.tx.us/cms/lib2/TX01000797/Centricity/Domain/912/ChemLessons/Lessons/Allotropes/Allotropes.htm).
Here is a picture of greyish-black "flexible graphite" with quite strong metallic luster: http://www.tradekorea.com/product-detail/P00233560/Flexible_Graphite_Ring.html#.Up9o8tfArhQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.130.244 ( talk) 17:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I prefer to think it's a gradient from metals to hardcore nonmetals, but it doesn't matter.
Try to think of it in a different way (I did try your way of thinking about it before asking you to, of course, and still think you could use another perspective, so please do).
We can build a descriptive model of all elements with just three categories: metals, reactive nonmetals, and noble gases. It is an approximate model, but it can work. Just when describing the p block, you will have to mention antimony has a few characristics that are more nonmetallic than metallic, but is more of a metal than of a nonmetal if you consider the overall score. It was, in fact, taught to me in school. This model does work. It is simple. In the beginning, I t makes you think, "Aha, that's who it works, I get it." Seems we can make a more accurate version, though.
And there appears the concept of metalloids, the elements for which you had to do these remarks (e.g. begins to be nonmetallic). It is, in fact, a popular concept now. It avoids these remarks, shows the transition from metals to nonmetals to be smoother than just a cracking line between those metals and nonmetals, there's a buffer zone now. Works even better at the cost of simplicity and "gettability." Still not too complicated.
Now when you have metalloids, things are crazy. People can't agree on selenium. At the same point, you think, hey, we'll use a buffer then, put Se there. And hey, P would fit in. And I! C! (Maybe you got this idea in first place in some different way, it doesn't matter) Maybe. But having this category makes things crazier.
First of all, if I were shown the table as you propose it, say, five yrs ago, I wouldn't get the point. Which is a very very very very very major aspect. (Of course, it's not about me, it's about readers. Actually, most our readers are not specialists in the topic they read about. They wouldn't get the point. Which is sad. Wiki is for common people, that is the point for the whole thing.)
Seriously, the way you suggest to have it is scientifically legal. No question of that. But this is kinda pro level.
When you come to school at the age of seven, they don't make you solve differential equations. They teach you to subtract, multiply, count apples. 2 + 1 = 1 + 2, but the trick wouldn't do with subtraction. You have to know that (and a lot of other stuff) to get to differential equations. Otherwise, it would be just mambo jambo you would want to run away from.
Same thing here. A majority of readers would not know why you grouped it this way. Here, in Wiki, that is. If you were writing a specialized book or an article about the topic, and be sure it would be read by acknowledged people, you can include that pro level.
You understand the topic now, but hopefully that would not prevent you from trying to wear a pair of a dummy's shoes for this occasion.
If even they can't agree on Se. It is an issue, yes. But altogether with graphite seminonmetalicity, it's still the lesser of two evils.
Wiki, in a nutshell, is a place existing established data is represented. The term "near metalloid" (or any other I tried) is not common for Google. It is not obvious for most readers (not guys who understand how things are going on like you, of course), either. Again, the classification is legal elsewhere, in a place establishedness is not required.
Tl;dr It is a good classification for some purposes, but reader won't get it.--
R8R Gtrs (
talk) 21:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
(P.S. There are other issues like metal near metalloids(?), gold, etc., but I consider the argument above much more important than all of those ones. Wiki is reader-oriented. It's not a place to install a new truth, however true it is. That's the whole point of Wiki.)
(P.P.S. I skipped the regular grammar check when writing this, because of the lack of time to spend here. Sorry if the text is too difficult to read. Hope it's not, though.)
If even they can't agree on Se. It is an issue, yes. But altogether with graphite seminonmetalicity, it's still the lesser of two evils. I do not agree with this opinion if it tells that Se is more metallic than Se. For me C is on the same level of metallicity as Se, maybe even a bit higher (of course, Se is more metallic in some classifications, but let's look also at P). And what about (black) P? It is also a "ner-metalloid". Typical near-metalloids are closer to typical metalloids than to typical nonmetals, they are not near-nonmetals. C, P nd overclassified Se have advantage of nonmetllic traits. Diamond is not so clearly nonmetallic as it is popularily thought. Structure, thermal conductivity, hardness, "desolidification" point are typically metalloidal (are such as Si and Ge, even not such as Se and P), but its appearance and electrical conductivity are nonmetallic (which is consistent with its position in the periodic table). In addition, graphite ("grey" or "metallic" carbon), black (grey, metallic) P and grey (metallic) Se are just (weaker than typical) metalloids itself (this classification does not include chemical properties of the elements and other allotropes), not nonmetals.
178.42.151.77 ( talk) 21:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Now when you have metalloids, things are crazy. People can't agree on selenium. At the same point, you think, hey, we'll use a buffer then, put Se there. And hey, P would fit in. And I! C! (Maybe you got this idea in first place in some different way, it doesn't matter) Maybe. But having this category makes things crazier.
I tink that metalloid category is useful to describe transition between metals and "nonmetals". Metallic "near-metalloids" (metals which are weak chemically and also physically) are named as poor metals (this name is also problematic). Nonmetallic near-metalloids can be polyatomic, diatomic and monoatomic, but the most typical (C, Se, P) are the most polyatomic of them. Diatomic I looks like a metalloid, but it can be the most metallic property of this element. H and Rn are very electropositive nonmetals and have marked cationic chemistry, it makes them flawed, not typical nonmetals. Metalloids tend to have EN about 2, near metalloids about 2,25 (H, P, Rn) - 2,5 (C, Se, S, I) and nonmetals about 3 (such as N, Cl, Br) and lower - O, F (Xe also has rather low - 2,6 in revised Pauling scale).
Nonmetal should not be polymeric, too conductive electrically or thermally, should not have metallic luster. Typical near-metalloids do something opposite - they are grey, metal-like-looking polymers with quite good conductivities, narrow baand gaps and rather high "desolidification" point (it is especially true for C).
There is no "staircase" which divides metalloids and nonmetals, but rather a diagonal - C, P, Se are half-metalloids and half-nonmetals than nonmetals. S can be also an issue - http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130712/ncomms3162/full/ncomms3162.html "Conducting linear chains of sulphur inside carbon nanotubes". Is there polymeric iodine allotrope? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.151.77 ( talk) 22:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Selenium is the large issue. Is it a nonmetal or a metalloid? Why only nonmetqallicity of selenium is questioned so often and not nonmetallicity of carbon and phosphorus? Iodine is less problematic, but in many properties closer to C, P, Se than to typical nonmetals. Sulfur also. All solid nonmetals are defective. They have stable lustrous and (or) are polyatomic. In almost all electronegaivity scales P has the lowest electronegativity from all nonmetals, lower than Se, which is closer to S and C, not to P. Why selenium is marked as a metalloid and P not? I think that it is unjust. Phosphorus pentoxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, selenium dioxide, selenium trioxide are more soluble and more acidic than oxides of carbon ( carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide). PCl5 and SeCl4 have very similar sublimation points. Phosphorus (V) oxide (especially polymeric forms) and selenium (IV) oxide can have quite large desolidification point. Se has qiute large reflectance about 30% - average ( http://webmineral.com/data/Selenium.shtml#.UqxTHidvhNM), but Te has about 2 times larger than Se - about 60% ( http://webmineral.com/data/Tellurium.shtml#.UqxSwidvhNM)and graphite about 2 times lower than Se - ca. 15% ( http://webmineral.com/data/Graphite.shtml#.UqxTZydvhNM), As has about 50 - 51% ( http://webmineral.com/data/Arsenic.shtml#.UqxT1SdvhNM). What about black phosphorus, boron (grey allotrope) and iodine?
Se has lower first ionisation energy than P and even As, S has is also lower than P. But the sum of first three ionisation energies is a bit lower in the case of phosphorus, not selenium. Tellurium has lower sum of first three IEs than P, unlike S and Se.
Carbon is weak chemically, it forms monomers with other nonmetals, such as N, O, S, Se, unlike metalloids. It is significant nonmetallic property. It has large ionisation energies and electronegativity. Physically it looks much more like polymeric, in fact quite conductive boron than highly nonmetallic nitrogen, but not chemically (rather opposite due to the formation of monomeric "nonmetallides"). B has a deficit of electrons, C not. And atom of C is small and light, P is heavier and larger, atom of Se is definately the largest of the atoms of four polyatomic nonmetals (C, P, Se). Although P has lower electronegativity, Se forms tetrameric tetrachloride, just like Te. It is an overlap. Se should be more metallic than S due to periodic laws. Some attributes should be shared with Te, but many should not and are not shared. Sometimes properties of Se are intermediate between properties of S and Te. SO2 and SeO2 are soluble in water, unlike TeO2. But H2SeO3 has lower pKa than sulfur analog, it is has pKa rather between pKa of H2CO3 (weaker) and H2SO3 (stronger). Volatility of SeO2 is between volatilities of S and Te analogs. H2Te is stronger acid than H2Se. But Se2Cl2 is low-melting and volatile. SeO3 is like SO3, not like TeO3, does H2TeO4 exist and what is its acid strength? SeF4 is rather monomeric, unlike TeF4. Electronegativity of Se is closer to its of S, not Te. Grey Se looks like a bit weaker version (lower mp and bp - diamond has larger mp and bp than Si and Ge; wider band gap, significantly lower reflectance) of grey Te. Se can be present as relatively stable olygomers such as Se8 (just as other typical near-metalloids), but I have not listened about sulfur-like olygomers of Te. Se and S forms volatile liquid compound with carbon (monomers), CTe2 (or better Te2C) is unknown. Carbon is an intermediate between B and N in general. P is more like As than N! It is also a near-metalloid, white allotrope is not the most stable, even red is not. Sublimation point of polymeric P is relatively similar to sulblimation point of metallic As. Electronegativity of P is much closer to As than its of N. Sulfur is also more similar to Se, not to O. Diagonals or strippings in the case of C, P, Se would be very useful and informing solutions - C, P and Se are intermediates between typical metalloids and nonmetals. They are "halfly metalloidal", which is the source of they marked metalloid properties, such as lustre, conductivity, polymerism, quite low electronegativities (especially in the case of P). Se is chemically and physically similar rather to P, not to Te and has to be classified in one metallicity class with P.
95.49.99.226 ( talk) 13:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)