Author Options:

Periodic Table of FAILURES Answered

Hello everyone!! It has been a while since I have posted anything but I am back. So, I am currently a freshmen in high school, taking block science. I just started chemistry and was very excited having prior knowledge and love for it. The teacher give  us a paper with the Periodic Table of Elements on it. It was made by the Navy with a bunch of pictures of ships and what-not. So it seems legit. BUT, after closer inspection I discover this is as accurate as a un-modded Nerf gun. Many errors, ranging from spelling of elements to incorrect symbols and more.

         So I issue a challenge. Since I have only knowledge of Chemistry I hope that here on Instructable's there are people who know it from the back of their head and can and will find the errors in this catastrophic table. I am posting a picture of it for you to investigate, if you need it to be clearer or anything else just ask. I am very curious to see what else on this is wrong.
I have already marked and fixed a few errors with a pen, but I want to see if there are more!


Somehow I can't reply to kelseymhs post directly...

"Lanthanoids" and "Actinoids." Nope, those are lanthanides and actinide"

Are you sure about that?

They are called "Actinoide" and "Lanthanoide" in German. "Actinide" and "Lanthanide" are the old names. They may be used, but since the ending "-id" is reserved for chlorides we were told, that it's better to use the new ones...

I did some research, because it could be different in English and found this book: http://old.iupac.org/publications/books/rbook/Red_Book_2005.pdf

On page 52 it says:

"Although lanthanoid means ‘like lanthanum’ and so should not include lanthanum, lanthanum has become included by common usage. Similarly, actinoid. The ending ‘ide’ normally indicates a negative ion, and therefore lanthanoid and actinoid are preferred to lanthanide and actinide."

There might be a new rule now, though.... All that stuff is hard to keep up with.

Other than that you are completely right, this periodic table is horrible.

That may have been because I featured the comment to to keep it at the top since I assumed further discussion would build off of it, which it did but there must be a glitch with featuring comments to people from replying :/

But I am enjoying this discussion about everything on this table, not only am I learning what not to trust on it but I am learning alot about what is correct and such. Very informative and very helpful, keep it up

By far my favorite mistake is the spelling of Copper
They spelled it Cooper.... COOPER.
I guess whoever made this didn't have enough Cooper in their body to think logically..
Hahahahaha, See what I did there? =D

That's just sad. A few of the mistakes, which you marked up, are purely typographical (for example, the "4" from the beryllium box is dropped down to just above the "12" in magnesium." But most of the errors are due to a pure lack of knowledge. Someone who didn't know, or didn't pass, chemistry was tasked with putting this together. Sigh...

"Lanthanoids" and "Actinoids." Nope, those are lanthanides and actinides, respectively. They are named after the elements which start each of the two series, namely "lanthanum" and "actinium" (which are misnamed in the table).

"Tb" is "terbium", not "tersium". It, and three other elements, were all named by using different syllables from the Swedish locality of Ytterby, where they were first found.

Elements 110, 111, and 112 have been labelled with their correct IUPAP symbols, but whoever copied this table didn't bother to change the IUPAP placeholder names to the correct element names (darmstadtium, roentgenium, and copernium).

Do you know when this table was published? In May 2012, flerovium (Fl) and livermorium (Lv) was assigned as the names of elements 114 and 116, respectively. That may not be a mistake if the table was produced before then.

Wow that is quite the list, doesn't make me very proud of the Navy, and more scared knowing that they are the ones powering nuclear submarines armed with nuclear warheads.....
On the back it has much more information for conversions, examples, ratios, and more and it says it was last revised 11/10
Shall I copy and post the back? There is a very ironic paragraph or taking chemistry to the next level haha. It also has a bunch of information I just talked about, I bet we could find even more there!
Thanks for the help!

Oh, by the way. I did not bother to do any checks on the numerical properties of the elements. That's not a challenge, just a lot of drudge work with Wikipedia.

I can imagine that is where a number of errors are but it is much to much work to check.

Never forget: some people need to be killed (with science).


Portal Physics is a nice way to go

Good grief...

This one is much more fun: http://www.periodicvideos.com/

We always say, "Good enough for government work." Go Army.