h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A546086
Belongs to the Periodic Table cycle (Not as big though)

Awaiting comments,

HELL

I didn't realise this had already been posted to Peer review so I'll repeat my comments from the post I made directly below the article itself.

This is a good article, very worthy of the guide, I especiallt like the fact that you have linked a variety of articles in this area - an h2g2 university project done on your own!

Only one minor quibble - Uranium is atomic number 92 and you state that there are only 91 naturally occuring elements (on earth anyway). I presume you took away the artificial element technetium to get this number. However, is not Promethium also artificial? In which case there are only 90 naturally occuring elements.

I'll be checking that out... But I think you're right.

Another excellent entry... simple and to the point. I spotted a few spelling errors, but they're fairly minor and rare, so it shouldn't overwork the sub too much.

Unfortunately, those cross-links among your various chemistry articles will get lost in the editing. That's another benefit of going through the University... all of your articles retain their original Axxxxx numbers, so you can link them. When these become Edited, the numbers will change, so the links won't quite work (and an Edited article never retains links to un-Edited material). If we flag down the Towers and bring their attention to this series of articles, I'm sure it can all be worked out.

I agree that this is marvellous stuff for a University project! And as things are, /all/ University projects consist of several cross-linked entries, so this is no exotic task for the SubEd.

>I agree that this is marvellous stuff for a University project! And
>as things are, /all/ University projects consist of several
>cross-linked entries, so this is no exotic task for the SubEd.

However, the process for reviewing and sub-editing University project entries is completely different than that for entries going through Peer Review. My suggestion would be that the author pull these entries from Peer Review and submit them as a University project.

Of course, one solution to the cross linking problem is to consolodate them all in one entry.

I think this history is brief enough that it could just as easily go with your excellent entry on the Periodic Table.

OR, you could *not* gloss over the several steps from the initial observation to the modern table and take us more thoroughly from the 'Here there be dragons' stage to the present.

Either way I'll be happy. After all, you're the one who has to do all the sweating.

More formally, I think what you have here only stands so long as the other Periodic Table article is accepted. Even though I like what *is* here, I don't think it's enough, by itself, for the edited guide.

Barton

Barton - Could you point out what you would be missing?

Thanks for your help,

HELL

Note to Scouts: Hell has already been advised about the benefits of doing this as a University project in another PR thread for another of these entries, and has declined. As long as the Towers are alerted to the nature of these articles, I'm sure they can all be cross-linked when they enter the Guide.

I disagree that this article needs to be incorporated into the article on the Periodic Table... that one tells what it is, and this one tells how it came to be. They're two different topics, and the titles denote that. We can have a history of the periodic table that doesn't necessarily go into detail on what it is, because it's a part of science that is very well-known. And anyone who has no knowledge of the subject could easily check the cross-link to the article on the table, which, in my opinion, should have no trouble making it into the Guide.

Hell,

Now you are putting me on the spot.

There are the several elements that were discovered because of blank spots in the PT: scandium, gallium, germanium, hafnium, neon, krypton, xenon, and radon.

There was the discovery that the atomic number related to the electrical structure of the atoms and not their weight as well as that some of the established weights 'must' be wrong. I know it's hard to say which came first, but it seems plain that without the PT, Bohr would not have progressed so quickly.

I think it's also fair to say that Lewis could not have explained valence and electron bonding without the organization of the PT to guide him.

I don't know how much of any of this is important to what you are trying to do. It's just that I have always been so impressed with how much information about why inorganic chemistry does what it does and how it does it, is tied to direct inferences from the PT.

Barton

Hi Barton, thanks for your suggestions.

But, before I try to improve this entry, let us talk about it... Many elements indeed were discovered after the invention of the PT. People at that time (1850s - before the PT was there) *knew* they had not discovered everything yet. The blanks in the PT acted somewhat like catalyst, because for the first time (in chemistry at least) someone was predicting the existence of something new and actually telling people where to look for it.

Mendeleev explicitly 'only' predicted the existence of Gallium and Germanium and their compounds (which is understandable, since these were the only elements missing in the *main* group - where the predictions of properties is 'easier' because the elements belonging to these groups follow the rules in a more strict way...) He did not mention the noble gases *at all* (Helium was 'seen' spectrally for the first time in 1868 by Janssen and Lockyer, and only obtained in 1890s together with many of the other noble gases. Since these gases are very inert, they were actually 'ignored' by chemistry for many years...).

Bohr would have had no problem without the PT. He deduced all his stuff by looking only at Hydrogen. In fact, the Table was accomodated to fit the electronics, and not the electronics found because the table was so nice. (On the other hand OK so maybe you are right. Since Bohr was a chemist (!!) he was 'used' to the table, so that some conclusions were primed by that circumstance... But also Newton knew lots of stuff before he came up with his laws.)

Gilbert N. Lewis came up with his ideas of shared electrons in 1916. He, too, was a chemist and in chemistry the PT allways plays a big role, specially in the early-days. But saying he was 'inspired' by it would be too strong. It's like saying Newton was inspired by Pithagoras... Or Newton could not have explained his laws without Leibnitz's differential equations to guide him.
-------------------

Of course this is all important to me, and to what I am trying to do. If something is not clear, then it is possibly because I have not formulated my thoughts in a correct way, or because common misunderstandings have not been put aside properly. That's why we are here in the PR after all, isn't it?

Cheers,

HELL

Hey Hell, I'm still keeping tabs with all these entries, and I am beginning to agree with Barton in spirit at least: In my opinion you should make a bit more of just how amazingly useful the periodic table really is - I dont know if it's neccesary to mention possible influences on Bohr or Lewis, but I feel that the article could somehow be more seriously enthusiastic about the periodic table in general - it sounds vague/trivial I know, but the periodic table is utterly relied upon by chemists the world over because it's bl***y brilliant.

Also, whilst I am here: Orcus wasnt sure at start of PR process on one of the other threads how much he liked the abbreviation of the periodic table of elements to the PTE. I thought I would keep quiet at first and see how I felt about it later, and now that a fair bit of time has passed I have decided I dont like it (sorry ). I have never actually heard anyone refer to it as the PTE, whereas the periodic table doesnt drag on too long as a title, and is used everywhere.

vp

Hey vp. First things first. PTE --> periodic t***e. You are obviously right. What can I do, I was just lazy. It's changed now.

Then: The uses of the periodic t***e are described in the periodicc t***e entry... In the history of the periodicc t***e I wanted to concentrate on the "History of the periodic t***e". I also mentioned that the community went nuts when they heard of that notorious t***e. This is probably realized by anyone who studies or is interested in chemistry. Of course it is bl***y brilliant.

To stress that thought, maybe I should add that the table revolutionized the whole way-of-thinking of chemistry by putting order in there. All chemistry since 1869 is deeply connected with the periodic t***e. The periodic t***e is to chemistry something like what Newton's Laws are to physics...

Thanks,

HELL

The thing I would like to see emphasised in History entry (and I guess the issue here is whether or not anyone is going to be reading the histroy entry without reading the periodic table entry) is that people are still going nuts about it - there are lots of pieces of science in history that people went nuts for, and then after a few more years, decided it was wrong and made something else up that was better.

Whereas nobody as of yet has stopped thinking about the periodic table as anything other than completely groovy, if you like that sort of thing .

Summary of summary of what I am trying to say: It would be nice to emphasise within history entry that the history of the periodc table is still being made today.

PS: thankx for scrapping of PTE , and thankx for listening

I added a line " today people still think that this table is an extremely groovy piece of science."

Was that enough?

About the perpetual changes the table is undergoing... I mention the maintainance by IUPAC and that it is not complete (since every now and then a new element is being synthesized) and not in its final lay-out...

In the beginning of your reply you wrote: " there are lots of pieces of science in history that people went nuts for, and then after a few more years, decided it was wrong and made something else up that was better."

In this case we are dealing with a TABLE and not some scientific model. It is a quite simple thing (which is the part I personally like most -- it is all there, but nobody had the idea of putting it all together. The beauty lies in the simplicity). Maybe that is the reason why it has been out there and changed so little...

PS: PTE *was* a bad idea... and thanx for commenting.

...The beauty lies in the simplicity...
exactly .

Maybe thats what you should say in the entry...

The beauty and the simplicity all speak to that most important of scientific qualities: elegance.

E=MC^2 is remarkable despite being simple because it so elegantly explains so many things.

The PT is the epitome of elegance for chemistry because its structure and the relationships it presents is ever so much more important than the fact that it is a list of the chemical 'atoms.' The organization of those elements is inherently more useful than any simple chart could be.

The PT is the distilation of all of our understanding about inorganic chemistry and much of the nature of organic chemistry as well.

Also you might want to find a way to illustrate two or three of the earlier versions of the PT, the ones with all the lines connecting connecting the columns, to show the progression and to demonstrate how much more intuitive the modern version is. Unfortunately this would be best served with graphics, though recent entries have managed to include graphics as illustrations so there is some hope there.

It is easy to show with the earlier charts how the PT managed to predict the presence of the missing elements. It is the predictive qualities of the PT structure that make it so powerfull, not just for the lack of an element but for the nature of what qualities that element must have.

Barton

Yes all agreed upon. But that IS in the entry already, isn't it?

About illustrations: I am just a poor little ignorant user on the very last end of the food-chain on h2g2. All I can do is point out that the graphgical verison of Mendeleev's table and many other ones (which are quite interesting too) can be found under the "(very complete)" link in the "main" PT entry.

If there is any other way of including the graphics please let me know. It would be of great help indeed.

Saludos,

HELL

One other resercher created graphs which he stored at his webside online and which he linked to inside his article for reference during the PR period. The article was accepted for editing and there is now some discussion that one of those illustrations will be accepted by h2g2 and added to the local store of avalable graphics.

Barton

As far as already being in the article, yes, they are to a certain extent. I guess I just want mmmmoooooorrrrreee.

Barton