tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11643254.post4672745259379537139..comments2021-02-21T13:02:26.859+00:00Comments on Metallome: IUPAC periodic table?Kirillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00719435019715182189noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11643254.post-19544295975929294872013-03-23T20:06:50.332+00:002013-03-23T20:06:50.332+00:00Thank you for your comment.
This is precisely my...Thank you for your comment. <br />This is precisely my point. IUPAC does not take an official position on the grouping of elements even if some people mistakenly claim that it does. I am in the process of putting together an official proposal to IUPAC. I welcome any input and comment.<br /><br />please also see<br />ericscerri.com/Eric Scerrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06078543468839401781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11643254.post-2344827480911211492013-03-23T15:26:31.143+00:002013-03-23T15:26:31.143+00:00Dear Eric,
thank you for a comment. My main probl...Dear Eric,<br /><br />thank you for a comment. My main problem is that it is not clear what the IUPAC position is. IMHO it is not good enough to have something published (and widely referred to) as "IUPAC Periodic Table" and then claim that IUPAC in fact does not approve this or any other form. As is the case with <i>any</i> IUPAC recommendations, some will follow it and some will ignore it, but one needs to have a recommendation to start with. (E.g. when IUPAC publishes the New Blue Book there will be PINs, i.e. "preferred IUPAC names". Nobody says they are the only names to be used, but they do set some sort of standard.) And I don't think there will be too many people terribly upset by IUPAC saying what form is preferred. If there are people still wanting to use the short form of periodic table that's fair enough, but it's better that they do it in the knowledge that this form is, officially, <i>not</i> preferred — something that's not the case now.Kirillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00719435019715182189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11643254.post-53905895269453335092013-01-15T22:44:45.461+00:002013-01-15T22:44:45.461+00:00Thank you for citing my work. I agree with you th...Thank you for citing my work. I agree with you that ideally IUPAC should also move to a 32-column or long-form periodic table. I just think this should be done in stages not to upset too many cherished beliefs too quickly. Perhaps they could adopt the correct grouping for what is currently called group 3 and then a also consider the move to the 32 column table. Incidentally this will very soon need to be a 50 column table, just as soon as element 121 is synthesized.<br /><br />ericscerri<br /><br />see ericscerri.com/ for more on this and related issuesEric Scerrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06078543468839401781noreply@blogger.com