Why is the Periodic Table Shaped the Way It Is? Is an Alternative Periodic Table Better?

Buy the Alternative Periodic Table poster:
usefulcharts.com/products/alt...
Special thanks to Dominic Walliman from Domain of Science for checking the script for me. Visit his channel here:
/ domainofscience
CREDITS
Narration/Charts: Matt Baker usefulcharts.com/
Animation: Syawish Rehman / @almuqaddimahyt
Audio Editing: Jack Rackam / @jackrackam
Intro music: "Lord of the Land" by Kevin MacLeod and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0. incompetech.com

[@UsefulCharts]

Buy the Alternative Periodic Table poster: usefulcharts.com/products/alternative-periodic-table

[@hansolowe19]

@@Anonymous-df8it won't be as pretty.

[@hansolowe19]

You could have called them valence shells, and helium is also a noble gas. ☝️

[@fakhruddinnalawala5451]

Periodic Pagoda?

[@hansolowe19]

@@Anonymous-df8it you are young and unfamiliar with printing? You don't know the difference between a poster printed in a professional shop by a printer that costs as much as a car - and a poster printed by your 50 euro/dollar discount hp inkjet? Do you not understand that they are not the same?

[@hansolowe19]

@@Anonymous-df8it yes, that much was clear from your clueless and dismissive attitude. You can go away now.

[@MrThingummy]

But the old table gives clues to so much more, in its own imprecise way. From which column they are in and their neighbours, you can usually guess if elements are metlic or not, liquid solid or gas, reactivity, electrical properties, if they are likely to be present in biological systems, acidity of compounds, how they will react with other elements and if those compounds will be stable, even toxcity. With the reasons for the exceptions adding more interest.

[@bibliophile4292]

in addition you can find the number of valence electrons (number in outer shell) and charge of main group elements (ones that have sub shells 2 and 6) easier. By no means saying this is bad, just benefits of the old one.

[@pXnTilde]

Oh, that must be why he said right there at the end, "For chemists or anyone who does serious chemistry work, the traditional table will always be the best. This is because the traditional table is designed to make it easy to find out which elements can be bound together to form compounds." I'm glad you were here to clear that up.

[@pXnTilde]

@@_blank-_ Turns out, you can have multiple ways of looking at something 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 I don't recall him saying to replace the traditional one. In fact, He specifically says it shouldn't

[@ttrev007]

It is good to have alternative tables to see alternative ways of organizing elements. I think it helps people see the relationships. Just because the traditional table is "best" does not mean the others don't have uses

[@KalebPeters99]

You can do all the same things with this one too! It just takes a deeper understanding. In the same way that you can extract the electron shells from the original table, so long as you understand how to do so. The benefit of each version is that it puts different patterns in the forefront. And this can help someone who is new to the subject to get a full picture of how it works. And of course, as he mentioned at the end, the conventional table is much better suited to higher level chemists, and nobody is advocating otherwise.

[@PraecorLoth970]

Speaking as a chemist, I can say that this table isn't really that useful, as was stated by the author. Besides it being very sparse, some aspects like periodicity are missing. Other criticisms I have are the inclusion of helium beside hydrogen. It's often out at its place to note its similarity to other noble gases and is absolutely, totally dissimilar to alkaline earth metals. In addition, the filling of subshells (orbitals) is wrong, from que quick glance I did. Nature doesn't follow the simple madelung rule, especially in the d and f groups.

[@pXnTilde]

" There are twenty elements (eleven in the d-block and nine in the f-block) for which the Madelung rule predicts an electron configuration that differs from that determined experimentally, although the Madelung-predicted electron configurations are at least close to the ground state even in those cases." Good enough for a chart

[@monstergojira]

I hate the way electron "filling" is taught because it gives people the impression that "most" elements can be predicted, that they are progressively filled instead of formed by fusion/fission events. This is an oversimplification that I think does students a disservice. The difference between Sc+ and Ca being a first step. Also, orbitals don't really exist either in the way that people in first semester chemistry often think they do. Solutions to the Schrödinger equation for hydrogen aren't accurate for large elements. Even the helium atom predictions are unknown (to my knowledge) at this time. They definitely don't follow the Schrödinger solutions.

[@user-sl6gn1ss8p]

@@monstergojira I think He can be approximated quite well, but yeah, only H has an exact analytical solution for the Schrödinger equation

[@VeteranVandal]

The periodic structure is there, but other convenient properties of the table are hidden, like the grouping of like elements. The one property the redesign aims at is already in too... Of course, for a chart it is ok, but any physics or chemistry beyond that is somewhat lost.

[@spencer1980]

Also the groups are pretty darn important. I can't be expected to remember the properties of every single element. It's really convenient to be able to take a quick glance at which group it's in and go "ah, it probably behaves like that guy, whose properties I do remember." The og periodic table isn't sexy, but it's pretty darn useful.

[@NielMalan]

The amazing thing about the periodic table is that it was created without any knowledge about electrons or protons, but purely using atomic mass and chemical behaviour.

[@krishpatel3156]

Actually, Henry Moseley made the modern one based off of atomic numbers which he derived from x ray diffraction techniques. I believe in 1913 if I am not wrong. The one which predated this one is Dmitri Medeleev's table which was created on the basis of atomic weights and therefore had a few anomalies. But Mendeleev I think was brilliant as he predicted the number of elements to be existed in the future just by the columns in his periodic table and gave them pseudo names until they were actually found.

[@skudsurfer]

@@krishpatel3156 Moseley acted as a kind of proof to confirm Dimitri's table as he reversed the order of some elements as the properties matter more than atomic weight. Dimitri was a really intelligent man but Moseley really added to his table in terms of creditability.

[@ffggddss]

There were similar early attempts to classify elementary particles in the early-mid 20th century. E.g, the "lepton, meson, baryon" classification by mass. And once again, as more knowledge came in, the classification scheme improved. Fred

[@chefandmusician9170]

Which is good or bad?

[@NielMalan]

@@chefandmusician9170 It was brilliant!

[@IONATVS]

While this helps greatly with explaining the physics behind the chemical properties of the elements, and therefore great for students learning it the I’d still say the groups are less obvious in this form than the traditional one, which is probably the single most important thing about the normal form to the layman, and the reason it’s called the “periodic table” and the rows called “periods” in the first place-the rough chemical properties of the elements recur *periodically*. If you’re looking at an unfamiliar element you can look at the other elements in its group or color-coded blocks and get a rough idea of what it’s like if you know any of the other more common elements in the block. If you know lithium shouldn’t be exposed to water, you can probably guess Sodium or Potassium shouldn’t be either. You know Neon is an unreactive gas, you can guess Helium isn’t going to catch fire either. While I personally care about the physical structure of atoms (ie the physics behind the chemistry), I honestly think most people would rather know “is this likely to kill me or not” first, and while the groups and special color-coded regions for “semi-metals” and the like don’t tell you that perfectly, even with the original table, the regular format still makes THAT pattern more apparent.

[@selenamertvykh6481]

It's interesting to consider how one would expand on this chart to preserve this property in some way. Printing each period on a transparency and stacking them up in order would (with the right spacing) bring the groups into alignment. You might even move helium to the noble gas "column."

[@delusionnnnn]

Yeah, I think any intelligently designed alternative periodic table often tells a very interesting and often useful story - and may be worthwhile to have access to or at least keep in mind. But I think the relationship between, say, potassium and sodium or xenon and argon is far more relevant to most people than element shell-filling, so the dominant periodic table is definitely more informative to more people about more things, regardless of whether they're chemists or football players.

[@pXnTilde]

He literally already said all this lol. In fact one of the last things he says is that the traditional one is specifically better for chemistry. His alternative view favors the period instead of the group, both are discernable on both if you know how to view it.

[@IONATVS]

@@pXnTilde No, while he did say the normal one was better for chemists, he ALSO said he felt his arrangement was better for non-chemists. Which is what I am disputing. His chart is better for those interested in UNDERSTANDING WHY the periodic table has the structure it does, but I would argue that is interesting to students, people with a more physics-based science background, and hobby chemists, it does not matter to the factory worker who just happens to occasionally work with chemicals or the millions of other laymen who might wonder “what the heck is Caesium? let me look at the table,” in those sorts of situations, which I would argue are far more common for TRUE laymen, the group and their shared macroscopic properties is >>> more important than electron shell fill order, and while you can find both ON both, it is much more intuitive on the regular chart.

[@delusionnnnn]

@@IONATVS Yep, agreed. Telling me a story about electron shells is worthwhile, but telling me about how elements react is simply more worthwhile to more people, particularly biologists, chemists, and laypeople. Very few people who look up a periodic chart are put out by not having access to the electron shell-filling order. There's a reason certain other elements in the same group as calcium can be taken up as calcium in the body, or why potassium and sodium have similar properties, or argon and helium in certain contexts, or why copper, silver, and gold are all ductile metals Etc. etc.

[@jeffmendolo]

The periodic table is designed that way because each column of elements share chemical properties, thus the elements’ reactivities repeat “periodically” from row to row. This all the noble gasses are on the right edge, all the halogens next to them, the alkaline and alkaline earths are to the right. This periodicity is demonstrated in nearly every chemical property we can measure. This is the reason chemists construct the periodic table in this way. Changing the periodic table destroys the periodicity.

[@totra2001]

That was my immediate criticism. It looks nice but isn't really usuable. Like an ornamental musical instrument on your wall. Looks nice but sounds bad.

[@SynitarEU]

That is mentioned at the end of the video, no? He says that for chemists, the normal one is better. They just claim their alternative is more helpful for non-chemists to discern patterns

[@KiWi13th]

Well I guess he said that the groups are still in one column but it really is more difficult to see them as a whole at once when they are distributed across the whole sheet. Additionally, Helium is listed in the second group, which makes sense in an electron-ordering way and with some properties, but certainly not with the majority of properties, being a noble gas.

[@Chaotic_Pixie]

For high school students, this video explains A LOT and the alternative table actually really helps explain the standard table, making the standard table more useful. This is actually REALLY great for students who most likely will only ever take one chem, maybe two chem classes in their lifetime and do so at a fairly rudimentary level.

[@renerpho]

@@KiWi13th If you wanted to sort the periodic table by macroscopic properties (like, whether an element behaves like a noble gas), you're getting into serious trouble with the ultra-heavy elements. Due to effects from special relativity, none of the elements beyond number 100 or so behave as expected. Oganesson is not a noble gas (it is predicted to be highly reactive, behave like a semiconductor, and would be a solid at room temperature, if you were to disregard the effects of its high radioactivity). The "traditional" periodic table doesn't account for any of this, because no chemist ever deals with compounds of Oganesson. As said, the table is a compromise, optimized for the needs of chemists.

[@Turpaanvetopasuuna]

I think that alternative table could be a decent teaching tool for atomic orbitals, and since that's all it's designed to do, it's great! But as said by many other chemists here in the comments you lose a lot of information when you arrange the elements like that.

[@h4roeverynyan55]

Im pretty sure this exact thing has been said in the video

[@OptimusWombat]

I enjoy the historical content on this channel, but it's really cool to see a science topic come up as well!

[@virginiawatford8391]

I think there is something about patterns. Patterns have a hidden parent. Making Paternity a parent. Or apparent. Pun ish ment. Btw... Adam of Atom or man is called Ish in Genesis. But I bet you know this.

[@Napoleonic_S]

@@virginiawatford8391 What's that?

[@virginiawatford8391]

@@Napoleonic_S my random thoughts.

[@xBris]

I'm not sure how to think about this. His lack of scientific knowledge is quite obvious and there are much better resources from actual experts on KZbin. But still, I love science, so it's always nice to see videos about it... Difficult.

[@OptimusWombat]

@@xBris it's fine for the layman. I don't think that this is really meant for members of the scientific community,

[@jonathanmitchell2040]

While this is an interesting representation, my main quibble is about the use of the term "shell" when what you actually mean is "period". The *periods* follow the 2-8-8-18-18-32-32 pattern you described, but that's not the same thing as the electron shells. You even show the electron shells when going through the Madelung rule.

[@auntifa]

can you say more /gen

[@EEconomos]

I wish you taught me science in the 6th grade. I spent my WHOLE life wondering why this table looks the way it does and I'm 71! This was very useful and interesting. Thank you so much.

[@weshard1]

Regarding the table’s shape relating to the orbitals (shells) - This was taught as almost an afterthought, when I was doing GCSE (United Kingdom) chemistry. I remember at the time, it all made sense, where it hadn’t before. This should be taught long before the memorisation of the first 20 elements.

[@weshard1]

@@grievuspwn4g3 That would be in the realm of physics, not chemistry.

[@unemiryune9322]

Mendeleev was a freaking genius to make this table from scratch

[@renerpho]

He truly was. His first periodic table had a few errors, but it was good enough to make some very powerful predictions (like, where new undiscovered elements should remain to be found).

[@martinstent5339]

You say that for chemists the old chart will still be the best, but I think that chemistry is the only reason to look at the periodic chart, and you want things which behave similarly to be under each other, like Silicon, Germanium and so on. I'm sticking to the old one. But thanks anyway...

[@pXnTilde]

99% of periodic tables out there aren't being looked at by chemists. It has value because it's interesting.

[@martinstent5339]

@@pXnTilde You don’t have to be a mechanical engineer to look at a table of screw sizes, but if you have to fix something, it’s a good place to look! I’m not a chemist either, but when I look at the periodic table, I’m looking for “chemical stuff”. The last time I looked was for gadolinium (MRI contrast injection), I wasn’t familiar with it, and wanted to know where it fitted in. I saw it’s below aluminium, so I’m thinking it will make a salt like aluminium does. I only have school chemistry, but it’s enough to get an idea of what’s happening. A chemist would probably laugh at that, but it’s enough for me!

[@pXnTilde]

@@martinstent5339 Dude people aren't putting the periodic table on their wall "just in case" - it's literally a decorative curiosity. What do you get out of knowing gadolinium "maybe" can make a salt like aluminum? Nothing. And you can *gasp* have both formats available to you.

[@DoctorCyan]

Of course, but most ordinary people only have exposure to the elements by the chart that’s not very intuitive to the laymen eye. Kids could be introduced to an alternative chart as shown here in their younger years, but then get used to the standard one once lessons necessitate understanding how atoms bond.

[@jeremyhaugen273]

Good job, brings back my days teaching chemistry. Missing the indicator for 5f around the 8:45 mark. Madelung Rule is also known as the AufBau Principle, at least in the US textbooks of 10 years ago. There are also a ton of other properties that can be explained using the periodic table. Atomic Radius, Ionic Radius, Electronegativity, and Ionic Charge being a few of the important ones. Some of those trends do get lost in your Alternative.

[@c4m231]

Finally someone mentioned electronegativity and radius, there's also ionization energy and electron affinity, though

[@LadyTink]

glad im not the only one who noticed xD

[@Falconslash3]

Indeed, for those wondering, electronegativity tends to go up the further up and the further right of the periodic table Whereas Francium gets a mere .7 value compared to Fluorine gets a whopping 4. Ionic radius tends to shrink the further to the right of a period, more protons, more pull. The families, columns share chemical properties.

[@joaopaulostadler5263]

Great jog! As a Chemistry teacher, I must say I liked it. However, the main issue with this alternative table is that it makes more difficult to quickly realize more important information then the electron distribution in the atom: the preriodic properties (atomic radius, electronegativity, ionization energy...). Those are used to explain elements characteristics and usage easier then the electronic distribution (although are obviously liked to it). For me, even the groups (with contains related elements, are harder to pinpoint in this model). Yet, a curiosity of mine: I teach in high schools here in Brazil and is required to teach everything you showed us in the video, it is not required there? Again, great job! Once real currency regains its value, I expected to boy lots of charts. Thanks for your amazing videos. (PS sorry about the usage of English haha)

[@byrondueck0]

Cool video. As a high school science teacher, I’ll use this video in class for sure. But the biggest deficiencies of this chart are the decreased emphasis on groups. Also no jagged stair step line separating the metals from the nons… so essential for ionic/ covalent bonding exercises.

[@KalebPeters99]

I'd say that the colours clearly demarkate the metals, theyre always green! The traditional table makes it even more obvious though, I agree.

[@AverageFitnessEnjoyer]

Literally just had a chemistry lesson on the history of the period table today. Weird how the universe works

[@Kalleosini]

I'd say there's a very good chance of at least one person who sees this video today to have been having a class on the periodic table earlier today. some math wizard could probably do a probability calculation on it, but I'm pretty confident that this was a plausible scenario given the number of people who watch this video today and the age range of this channels viewers.

[@nert-13]

To improve the table, I reccomend each period be aligned such that each row begins on the far left. This makes it aparent that the first element is the one with a new subshell, and where counting begins for said subshell. Otherwise it looks clunky with the centered layout

[@pffftnames9047]

But the period numbers also correspond to the energy levels or electron shells as what is demonstrated on the left at 8:40

[@nert-13]

Yes. Each shell goes left to right. But it starts on the left, not in the muddle

[@Robmaster-pk4lw]

The normal table has some important features, which you didn't mention: -You can see the electronegativity of the elements (from the 2nd period downwards it gets smaller and from left to right it gets bigger. If you understand the table you can immediately say that Fluorine has the highest (4) -You can also see how many electrons an Element can give or receive to get a full outer shell (stable form) -The Elements in the rows also show similar reactions with other Elements -...

[@bjorn7355]

One can debate forms of charts back and forth - but as an introduction to the periodic table - this was very good!

[@michaeln.9014]

As a chemist I loved this video! As you mentioned the traditional Periodic Table is more useful, but it is always interesting to see different ways to arrange the elements into a table.

[@SiqueScarface]

When I was in school, we had two different charts on display: the usual, which was called Long Period System, and another one, where the d-shell elements were put offset diagonally between the s- and p-shell elements. This one was called Short Period System. The groups formed by the s- and p-shell elements were called Main Groups and named Ia, IIa, IIIa until VIIIa, while the d-shell elements were sorted in the Transition Groups, numbered Ib to VIIIb. As you note, there are 10 d-shell electrons, and thus each period contains 10 d-shell elements, which was mitigated by putting three elements into the VIIIb group. In Period 4, the Transition Group columns were filled from IIIb, leaving Ib and IIb empty. It then spilled over into Period 5 with Group Ib and IIb, before the chart continued with the p-shell elements in Group IIIa. PS: There is another element, whose name does not resonate with its symbol: Tungsten. In English, it is called by its Swedish name (tung sten, heavy stone) but the chemical symbol W is derived from its German name Wolfram.

[@gildedbear5355]

I think that the fundamental problem is that people generally only see ONE arrangement of the elements. (kind of like maps) The elements have patterns and relationships with each other. Different arrangements emphasize different ones. The best thing for any student would be to see multiple arrangements in their science classrooms. Same style, same information on the elements, just a different arrangement of the little boxes for each element. Heck, throw in a 3d representation as well. Maybe even a chart showing the half-lives of nuclides as well. reality is complicated, we do students a disservice by not being upfront about that complexity, even as we teach them simpler theories of reality so that they can learn.

[@mateuszmojsak508]

There is a serious error in the explanation in this video and the resulting alternative table, which would be significantly misleading to chemistry learners. With each new main energy level, there is a new sub-shell for electrons to fill that can hold consecutively more electrons. Therefore, the first main energy level can hold 2 electrons, the second 2+6=8 electrons, the third 2+6+10=18 electrons, the fourth 2+6+10+14=32 electrons, etc. For reasons resulting from the radial distribution of the probability of finding an electron in a given orbital, the 4s subshell is filled before the 3d (and this happens further to 4f as described by the Madelung rule), hence the elements that hold their valence electrons in the 3d orbitals are placed in the 4th period, but those electrons still formally belong to the 3rd main energy level (and the electrons in the 4f orbitals belong to the 4th main energy level, despite the elements being placed in the 6th period). It appears that the motivation for proposed alternative table is trying to explain the 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32 pattern. But since the pattern simply reflects the number of elements in each period and has virtually no chemical meaning (reasons described above), I feel like it only emphasises the aspect of the original table that leads to misunderstanding when people first learn about the periodicity. When you claim that the pattern gives the "number of electrons per shell", this is unfortunately wrong, so despite I appreciate the attempt to explain the shape of the periodic table to the general public, I think this video might be harmful to those trying to get a complete understanding. Speaking from the perspective of a chemist and educator.

[@robweber2509]

You should totally present Martyn Poliakoff with one of these charts

[@mfaizsyahmi]

underrated comment

[@robertfletcher3421]

I was thinking the same thing I would love to hear the Professors comments on this one. He collects them all. Send him one at Nottingham University.

[@erikb3799]

I appreciate your discussion of the drawbacks of this chart format. It emphasizes the periods, but obscures the groups to a degree. Thanks for the honest presentation.

[@glenlincoln1]

Outstanding! Very, very well done. Thank you for this. I learned so much, and without having overheating my brain. It's interesting background, well delivered. Whoever is doing your graphics, oh, wait, never mind, that's your specialty. Anyway, I love this video.

[@kae5717]

It was a lot of fun hearing you talk about science today! My chemistry teacher showed us the origin of the table back in 10th grade. This was a fun refresher. I like your revision too, it might be helpful for classrooms

[@agniswar3]

Thank you so much Matt! To refreshing my memories of my Chemistry classes.

[@ccoder4953]

Like you said, the normal chart is better for chemists. Your chart does show certain properties more clearly than the regular one, but the thing is it makes those aspects clearer while sacrificing clarity in other areas. Even for non chemists, the normal one shows alot of properties better. For example, Si has 4 outer electrons and wants to make 4 covalent bonds (actually the same crystal lattice structure as diamond). When we make chips, we dope (replace a fraction of atoms of) silicon wafers with an atom from one of the adjacent columns, creating an excess or deficiency of electrons in the lattice. That makes n or p type silicon, the building blocks of diodes and transistors. The normal version shows that relationship nicely.

[@richardmalone4733]

A lot of comments talking about this alternative periodic table isn't really periodic anymore. That's probably because we rely so heavily on this one "Periodic" Table of elements that we all too often drop the "of elements" part and just say periodic table. Whereas this seems to be an Alternative "Table of elements" not periodic but, as you said at the end of the video, more rooted in fundamental sub-atomic physics rather than chemistry. It shows a good classical interpretation of the way degeneracies of Schrodinger solutions increase as you move up the atomic number. This is definitely going to be the first UsefulChart I buy!

[@MaryamMaqdisi]

This was fascinating, thanks for sharing!

[@maximebrassard2435]

I very much enjoyed this content and would like if you ever did more science stuff!

[@brololler]

best explanation i've seen. i remember struggling with this, and books unable to clearly explain it, i just memorized it.

[@arnaudvoisin2651]

Thanks a lot for trying to demystify this table! Indeed for chemists I believe the existing one is better, just to quickly see electronic affinity for instance (although maybe it shows on yours too, I’ll check!]. You mentioned the bonding orbitals (“chemists need to know how atoms bond together”), indeed I am not sure how to see it in your table as clearly as the existing one, but maybe there is a way.

[@ffggddss]

Neat idea; I've always found alternative presentations of Mendeleev's chart to be interesting, and revealing of things not in the customary table. And I like your idea here. One common sticking point is helium. It's a noble gas, yet it sits atop column 8 in the traditional table. Why? Because that column isn't actually for elements with 8 electrons in the outermost shell; it's for those with a *full* outermost shell, and since He has only 1 shell, that shell is full with 2 e's. But that sets it away from the column that's for elements with 2 electrons in the outermost shell. Thus, the conundrum. Another rule that we learned in chem class, after the 2-8-18-32-50-... rule (the double-square numbers), when going from inner shell outward, is that those same numbers (except starting with 8) are the maximal e-counts from the outer shell inward. And the rule you showed for the fill-order of subshells, implies this secondary rule for filling shells. It turns out, however, that the subshells don't always stick to that easy rule. But that's a detail beyond the scope of what you're trying to present here, so it would have been a bit too confusing to mention. The main thing is, the shells do stick to the shell-filling rule, even if there are arguments between subshells in a given shell, about who gets the next electron. Thus, the way the shells fill is (Z is used in nuclear physics for the proton count of a nucleus; i.e., the atomic number): shell 1 at Z=2 (He); shell 2 at Z=2+8=10 (Ne); shell 3 at Z=2+8+8=18 (Ar); shell 4 at Z=2+8+18+8=36 (Kr); shell 5 at Z=2+8+18+18+8=54 (Xe); shell 6 at Z=2+8+18+32+18+8=86 (Rn); shell 7 at Z=2+8+18+32+32+18+8=118 (Og); and if there were more, they would go: shell 8 at Z=2+8+18+32+50+32+18+8=168; shell 9 at Z=2+8+18+32+50+50+32+18+8=218; shell 10 at Z=2+8+18+32+50+72+50+32+18+8=290; etc. However, there are reasons, due to relativity, that atoms can't be formed at all, more than perhaps a few dozen beyond the end of the current list. Fred

[@giordy9013]

I was a bit confused, I thought it was a video from periodic videos, then I realized it was yours. It's quite a good video, well done as it's not much what you usually deal with. I can just say that the standard form of the PT it's just that, a standardized way to depict the property of elements, but there are various different PT that point to particular aspect, though less known they're quite useful, especially when teaching and you have to explain difficult topic like the filling up of the electron shells

[@bruce-le-smith]

Great video thank you so much. Much easier to understand than my high school than my high school teachers. I think your new poster with a little traditonal thumbnail in a corner would be nice, so you can scan them both at once if you want. Subscribed!

[@jaceware8808]

I got my chart today. Thank you. This is going to help me with my studies. The chart is on much thicker paper than I expected. Really great value for the price.

[@joannabell9294]

Thank you! That is wonderful!

[@vinesthemonkey]

You only mentioned this in a sentence or two but the reason why the traditional chart is so useful is not just the rows but the columns (groups) for which elements in the same group have remarkably similar properties (e.g. noble gases, alkali metals, halogens)

[@theshenpartei]

This is the perfect chart to go through and it’s a nice change of pace

[@JJ-qz5gv]

This video should have millions of views. Thank you 💯

[@theforensicbadass]

That was so badass, thank you!

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

This is very relevant for me because I got a chemistry test this week on the periodic table, lol thank you

[@megster116]

For science!! This was really cool to touch on a different subject than usual!

[@rexisnox577]

The one thing I can get behind is the showing of Electron configuration and state of matter in the elemental image, those are pretty nice.

[@JJoy-bk8yr]

I see there is a mini version of the traditional chart up in the upper left hand corner of the poster. And as you noted, you have created symbols for different chemical groups. So - for the mini chart up in the corner - I think it would be helpful to make it a little bigger, add those stair-step lines to it - the ones that divide the elements into groups by properties. To each group, superimpose your square/circle symbols onto it as appropriate. This would show how the periods work and be an additional link between your pretty pine tree shaped list and the traditional chart. .

[@helenat2446]

Matt please make a chart and video for my life. Everything is so much easier to understand when you explain it.

[@downsidebrian]

I like the cylindrical one, where each row flows into the next.

[@fishergreer36]

Sayme

[@darthvader7450]

Dude, this is totally awesome! You've done a way better job explaining the periodic table than most freshman level college professors.

[@palinanavitskaya6133]

Something to note is that there are a lot of exceptions to the Madelung rule. Some of these exceptions even occur periodically and thus can be spotted on the common periodic table. For example, in group 6 the outermost s subshell will have one less electron than it's supposed to (according to the Madelung rule) while the outermost d subshell will have one more than it is supposed to (according to the Madelung rule). The same pattern happens in group 11. Note that this isn't a hard rule either and has exceptions.

[@teambellavsteamalice]

An idea for a poster is stress importance of some elements by making them bigger and shrinking the less relevant ones. A method to get an objective ballpark measure of its importance is to find out its volume in production and/or imports and its price/weight and take the ln of each. Either just add or use arbitrary weight factors to make the relative values look nice. Then round these into a few categories and pick size from the minimum you can read the element letters to your maximum desired size. The end result will be a periodic table with for instance for the metals: something, *Titanium*, something, something, _chrome_, something, *IRON*, something, etc For learning about the periodic table people can see what's important and what is similar to it. It helps not to be overwhelmed by the number of elements as only a small part is relevant to know about. My guess is the first three rows (except Be and B), half of the fourth row, only Ag and Sn, then W, Au, Hg and Pb and everything else tiny. But maybe it'll contain a few surprises too! A variation is to turn each square into a rectangle, reducing the height proportional to its volume category and its width to each value category. Nice to see long narrow precious materials and short high bulk good materials.

[@markwindsor914]

Really interesting. Keep up the good work. I bought your charts of European royalty and enjoyed working out who were my ancestors.

[@TheTexasHorseman]

Another nice presentation Matt! I enjoyed it and as a Neon glass sign artist the Nobel gasses are what I work with to make light.

[@Majorfatal1]

Nice! If you go up with all red ones you will get even more nice structure: 2, 2, 6-2, 6-2, 10-6-2, 10-6-2, 14-10-6-2, 14-10-6-(x) insteed of x goes first 2, means periodic system is organized in circles ...

[@terrydpierce2191]

This is a great video and you are a great presenter. I think it is clever the themes you have presented over the years, and I enjoy the content and information. For this video >>> This error may have already been pointed out by another commenter. The element after Md is No. No is missing at time stamps... 5:52 ... 8:39 ... and 9:45. At 9:45... Lr appears twice. Once at the end of the yellow line and again at the beginning of the green line below it. But !!! Your new chart is correct! I heard your son present a chart yesterday. Family tradition is always cool.

[@jonathanarena4263]

Love the video and this channel! One small suggestion on the final poster. Those of us who are red-green color blind may find it difficult to see the difference between the red and green groups. If you were able to increase the contrast slightly I think that’d be a great help. However I’m sure you’ve already printed quite a bit of these so it may be too late; just a thought!

[@JohnnyAngel8]

That's a valid request ... and concern. I had a parent who was red/green colorblind and a partner with the same. I don't know how they didn't get confused with traffic lights! Edit: actually my partner was completely colorblind.

[@jonathanarena4263]

@@JohnnyAngel8 traffic lights aren’t so bad being that (1) you have the position to go off of and (2) the green is actually more of a white so contrasts well with the red. For me the trickier part is distinguishing red and yellow (which is really more of an amber) especially at night when it’s not clear what the positions are.

[@wesleysmith2199]

Speaking as a red/green colorblind person, I have no problem with the color scheme. (However, tiny green lettering on a red background, or vice-versa, would be difficult.) Speaking as a chemist, I am with the other commenters who mourn the loss of information in the new arrangement. (BTW, it is the grouping of hydrogen with the alkali metals on the traditional table that has always been the major mismatch, not the placing of helium with the noble gases.)

[@Mars20231]

Unless I misunderstood the video, (or my science classes from years ago) it's never brought up in the video how depending on how close to the right an element is, generally, that is how many electrons are in the shell. Atoms typically like to have their outermost shells filled. Noble gasses (far right) have their outermost shells full, so they are usually inert. Alkali metals (far left) as well as the halogens (group right next to the noble gasses) are one electron away from either filling their outermost shell or losing an electron to have their other full shell become the outermost. This is why those elements are very chemically active. These are the most obvious examples of this, not counting things like water where Oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms bond easily because O has 6 electrons on the outside and the 2 from the hydrogen bond to make 8 electrons.

[@DistanceTraveled]

I like this table. I am a geographer, so i intuitively understand that some maps are more useful than others based on their purpose, which I think is the case of what you highlighted here. If you are trying to go from Florida to New York a polar projection centered on the north pole just doesn’t make sense. But for exploring orbitals and breaking down the information to start a conversation as well as to have the information available in a portrait orientation, I love this table. ❤ maybe a future present for my chemist boyfriend. ❤

[@carlmarburger7513]

I feel like my professors failed me to a degree. After four chemistry classes, three physics classes, and two materials classes, not once was the Madelung Rule mentioned. That was helpful. Thank you.

Weird that 5 minutes ago I just finished my chemistry exam.

[@jitendramisra722]

Wonderful, awasome

[@CattVanDo]

Nicely done

[@da0kitheviking143]

This should be shown to every person right after they have learned the basic atom model (borh, orbitals....). Great piece of work Matt!

[@da0kitheviking143]

Maybe we should promote the "periodic tree" to the average person as a serious alternative!

[@vinesthemonkey]

practically speaking, the groups (columns) are more important than the blocks.

[@da0kitheviking143]

@@vinesthemonkey I am a chemist and I fully agree. However, I still think that the blocks are something the average person would care to understand and thus this might even work as a gateway to the standard periodic table.

[@bothering99]

Great periodic table, however, the original one also has 'hidden' meanings lost in your new chart, that of outer electrons, where sodium (Na) has 1 outer electron and chlorine has 7 (17) in the columns corresponding to the number of outer electrons. 1-3 are positively charged while 5-7 are negatively charged, 4 is generally neutral, and 8 (18) are noble gasses. this also goes into the fields of charges and reactivity/stability which is generally lost or at least less visible in the new chart. going deeper into chemistry really shows how well the general periodic table is actually made and why it is not replaced already by other different tables.

[@DMTHOTH]

Periodic table is not just to show how electrons fill in.. it has to show the elements' characteristic features. Current one is the perfect middle ground.

[@mikeharrison1868]

Mendeleyev had the rows and columns transposed. (And of course there were lots of holes when he came up with it - which inspired chemists to go hunt out the missing elements.)

[@leadiodide8243]

0:36 no the placement of Lanthanum and Actinium is actually kinda wrong, its because those two fall into the category of d-metals while the rest in the line are f-metals. It is fixed by putting them next to Barium and Radium to start the line of d-metals while leaving the f-metals outside the table to make space. Points is, its not only the color or the font that change, this is a general factor that will determine if I like or disslike a certain periodic table (actually the only, I dont care about the font or colors). And dont hit me with the generally stays the same, Im seriously curious how they will mess up the vid even more..... Update: Turns out it is even more wrong then I thought. So the electron configuration of La is: (Xe) 5d1 6s2 (notice no f) while the electron configuration of Lu is: (Xe) 4f14 5d1 6s2 (notice no change in d), so not only do they include La as an f-element, they exclude Lu from the f-elements, so when you go to count the amount of f elements in the period, you count the correct amount (7) but you start and end at the wrong place. Update 2: Did they go all the way down in the groups. They did right? Update 3: so turns out like 75% of the periodic tables are schown with Lanthanum down but "only" like 30% show Lutetium up, I just explained why La should be up (aka in the d block) and Lu down (aka in the f-block) but its really interesting how so many companies show it the "wrong" way. If it was at least shown with 15 elements in the f-block and they said sth like "if you count it you will notice 15 elements in the f-block, but thats because the f-elements are named after the first d-element in their respected period (lanthanoids, actinoids) sth sth but they straight up say La is an f- element and Lu is a d-element. Personally when I was learning electron configuration and how to determine it based on the placement in the table I was really confused with these and it really makes my blood boil when I see a table that has it this way. This is similar with helium but because of its world famous properties as a noble gas, the placement is forgivable, while I litterly ask chemistry university graduates to tell me the chemical symbol of Lawrecium, they will struggle to give me the correct answer because they studied organic chemistry and it is completelly irrelevant to them (yes actually happened)

[@earshad2622]

I soo love Chemistry! You're explanation makes it easier to understand what chem books state

[@Winkkin]

Golly, that makes so much sense. I immediately subscribed, as I believe form should mirror function and you seem to have cornered the market.

[@GregBrick]

I wish you could someday tackle water chemistry charts, see what you can do with them. For example, the Piper diagram, is that the best way to visualize water constituents? And so forth. Potentially huge market for wallcharts like that in countless environmental laboratories around the world!

[@fraso7331]

Great idea!

[@JoeA1974]

I've bought some of your charts before. I like the alternative periodic table for a different perspective to element relationships. There are a few alternatives besides the one you're selling at the moment. I'm going to get yours and hang it between a P. table of spectra & a P. table showing electron shells. I will purchase additional scientific charts from you if you produce more. Biology, chemistry or physics, we will make space on our lab walls.

[@LauraPL256]

I love how detailed you explained this but I still have no idea what I just watched 😂

[@JohnnyAngel8]

It's not about the elements per se, it's about why they are arranged the way they are based on the structure of the atom. It would be helpful to have videos on the several more element comparisons and on what characterizes the periods and groups other than the atomic structure. For instance, that the metals are grouped together. This part was kind of skimmed over.

[@M31Galaxy1]

Well done!

[@landsgevaer]

Fun idea, and although I agree with other commenters that some additional structure is lost, it also brings out some other structure better. Maybe make the poster two-sided with both depictions!? 😉 If you are letting go of the traditional setup anyway, then why not group according to the Madelung Aufbau diagonals, i.e. into two periods* with only s (i.e. two red blocks), then two periods* with only s+p (six blue on top of two red blocks), then two with s+p+d (ten green on six blue on two red), etc. So stick the red blocks to the bottom of periods* instead of on top. Then every second period* grows with an additional orbital, and each period* has a nice pyramid shape that tapers down, like an upside down Xmas tree of sort. You might need elements 119&120 to complete what then is the 8th period*, but hey that makes it a nice round number (5 factorial, by accident). It might not be exactly scientific, but it would be even more regular and artistic perhaps. (* I've called them periods with a star because they don't start when new shells are filled exactly anymore; groups I & II have been cyclically shifted.)

[@WeyounSix]

I LOVE this idea, please expand to do more genres of charts!

[@Mothmoth3]

As a chemist i love this video and chart. Great job

[@charlesjohnson4082]

The periodic table design that you present as original was first created by Prof. Edward Mazurs in his book on "A 150 Years of Periodic Tables" back in 1978, which he created years earlier.

[@patricktilton5377]

This great chart lists 118 elements, but it's my understanding that theory has it that due to the Fine Structure Constant there can be up to -- yet no more than -- a total of 137 elements. According to the design of this chart, elements 119 and 120 would be in RED, but then the next (i.e. last) 17 elements would be in a new row which, according to the scheme followed by the earlier groupings, would be a row able to fit 18 elements in it -- that is, the last 17 elements would fill up all but the last spot on the 18-element group-row. Such a row could be colored either ORANGE or PURPLE or perhaps just WHITE or BLACK or even GREY to denote their status as theoretical elements to fill in the Periodic Table to its maximum amount.

[@nymphrodellsalavin]

This is assuming no island of stability and super dense atoms though.

[@Bergkatse2]

I remember being a first year undergrad and being taught about electron orbitals/density (as opposed to the solar system style you get at high school) and the quantum mechanics of electrons and having a complete “ah hah” moment when I saw the s, p, d etc pattern jump out at me when I looked at the periodic table on the wall. I thought for a nano-second that I was the first one to notice this 😂. Your design is very interesting but as a chemist group behaviour is more important that periodicity. It’s more useful to know that iodine behaves similarly to bromine over that lithium is in the same period as carbon. Very Nice explanation!

[@byrondueck0]

Also oxidation states are difficult to determine on this chart.

[@Joe90V]

Really like your version of the table but it would be good if you could add in the origin of the elements as well; Big Bang fusion, cosmic ray fission, merging Neutron stars, exploding massive stars, dying low mass stars and exploding white dwarfs. I believe a version has been done by ESA/NASA/AASNova in collaboration.

[@RexxSchneider]

The main reason why the lanthanides and actinides are set out separately from their "proper" position in the periodic table has nothing to do with "the paper being too long". it's because as an f-shell fills, it doesn't have much effect on valence because the f-shell electrons rarely play in part in it. So the chemical properties of the lanthanides and actinides remain remarkably similar, a point that is wholly missed in your new formulation of the table. The same is true to a much lesser extent for the d-shell electrons, so there is some sense in leaving the transition elements in place.

[@tigertiger1699]

Great vid..🙏👍

[@paulromsky9527]

Great video and charts. Suggestion. When showing the Bohr's model of atoms with just protons in the nucleus, you should put a note in it saying neutrons not shown in this example, it may confuse newbies to all this - that are getting info from other sources as well. If you have to explain that the protons define the atom and its atomic number, then the atom models are for newbies. But, your Shell chart is fantastic.

[@tc5028]

Thanks!

[@sabinsx]

Aww, was kind of hoping you'd do more than one chart.

[@juliamonem133]

but then also keep in mind when atoms bond, sometimes they form hybrid shells. sp3 is seen in methane, where the 2s and 2p shells combine to make 4 sp hybrid shells that are 25% s and 75% p shells.

[@mb8787]

In my university, one of the lecturing halls has a periodic table on a chart. In it, hydrogen was not placed atop litium, but rather hovering above the s-group, leaving helium at the end, the sole member of period 1. I guess this was done to highlight hydrogens rather exceptional chemical and physcal properties.

[@sebillan]

Actually, there is something wrong in the explanation of the difference between some symbol and their name. ALL the symbols are based on the Latin version of the element's name (not only "some of the 12" known in ancient times). But in our everyday life , we use a different name, depending the language we speak, for some of them (mostly old known elements) For example, in french, we have "Azote" for "Nitrogen" (N), but "Fer" for "Iron" (Fe)

[@ersilcoff]

Although what you present is interesting for the lay person it completely distorts the whole point of the periodic table. When Mendeleev started to develop the table he was oblivious to the electronic structure (I also have lots of comments on the incorrect way the electrons were presented). He was looking for similar properties in elements. Hence he even left holes in places where elements where still undiscovered. This is far more important to non chemists. Knowing that sodium is a salt forming element like potassium. Or that silver and gold are both workable metals is far more important than knowing the electronic structure.

[@sculpture_9498]

I just recently stumbled over the Charlie Chaplin family tree, and it's actually pretty extensive. I'd love to see a Hollywood family charts Part 2 with the Chaplin's as a feature.

[@rodrigodepierola]

In Spanish, we call Madelung "La ley del Serrucho" (Saw Law) due to the shape of how you fill up the electron shells.

[@zetsumeinaito]

I dunno what high school science classes the writer took, but mine, back in the late 90s explained a variety of functions that the alternate poster just didn't have. Mainly because it was a root subject in basic science class that lead to it being used all the time in the chem and biology classes that came after.

[@jamesallen74]

Great idea. Are you missing 5f in the maullong diagonal line thing at 8:50?

[@sandscribbler]

Thanks for this helpful video, and the tone you use (in all of your videos). I appreciate this particular alternative periodic table if for no other reason than that it helps me better understand why the traditional table is generally used. Actually, since I'm not a chemist, I prefer it for other reasons, too. It makes me think that when chemistry is taught, maybe alternative tables should be used at the beginning, simply to encourage students to think. Then the traditional table can be presented at the end and perhaps have a greater impact. Otherwise, in a rush to present the traditional arrangement of the elements, the student ends up with information overload and doesn't learn ANYthing. Now you've got me wondering what a 3D arrangement of the elements (picturing them as cubes rather than squares) might look like. Would we see any relationships that are hidden in 2D tables?

[@volkerfritzopitz]

The best periodic table of elements is the quantum table, it integrates all the elements in one comprehensive chart, so you will see the differenciation of elements according to their valence electron s, p, d and f

[@stephanrae2878]

Thank you, I need to build a shadow box in periodic table shape and you have shown me alternatives