Your periodic table is probably WRONG

The placement of Lawrencium (and few other elements) is the topic of this video about the periodic table.
Featuring Sir Martyn Poliakoff.

[PedrocaRicardo]

As a person who is learning english, it's very relaxing listening to the professor. He doesn't speak as fast as most people do, and his words are very well pronounced, in a way that it is easy for even me to understand every single word he is saying. Also he knows very well how to explain himself.
Keep up the great work professor. Love your videos and your hair.

[NathanAndRose]

"What we're interested in is what nature is like, not how easy it is to draw it."

This simple sentence beautifully articulates what science means to me :)
-Nathan

[BoredChemist]

that awkward moment when you're actually wearing your periodic table tshirt while watching this video AND Lutetium and Lawrencium happen to be in group three on that shirt

[Scy]

That quote at the end should be emphasized more: "What we're interested in is what nature is like, not how easy it is to draw it."

Pretty much should explain science to sceptics.

[paulhahn]

"Simulation of Brady's high school chemistry memories" haha

[BrondanStifflson]

Am I the only one that is happy after watching this video?

[maskedmarvyl]

I'm learning more in these few videos than I did in an entire year in high school chemistry. That's a testament to how well-presented these videos are, and to how bad my high school chemistry teacher was, who had absolutely no interest in teaching it.

[youtubasoarus]

And that folks is why Science is awesome. We find out what's wrong, and WE FIX IT!

[Krebzonide]

I noticed this problem back in chemistry when we learned about the sub levels. You talked about this at the end of the video and I always thought that's the way it should be done. It makes sense that the left is s sub level and the right is p then the middle bit is d, but I always thought it would make sense for the f to be put before all of the d, therefore making La and Ac part of the bottom and Lu and Lr should be up with the rest of the d sub level.

[RainaRamsay]

This is fascinating.  Thank you, Professor Poliakoff, for explaining it in a way I can understand.

[sacredbanana]

Now we know what boxer shorts the professor wears

[tone]

You talk a lot about Lawrencium here, but wouldn't this be much easier to test with Lutetium, which has a stable isotope and is thus significantly easier to observe and play with? And if so, why didn't we know this already?

[agentham]

I laughed pretty damn hard at the simulated chemistry memories.  My memories are about the same.  ;p

It's amazing how Martyn and the rest of the gang make what would normally be such mundane and boring subjects into interesting and understandable information.  If only I had chemistry teachers like these in high school.

[lorenwilson]

I think that Scandium and Yttrium should be placed above Lutetium and Lawrencium rather than the other way around. They all share the same property - one electron in a d-orbital.

[NostalgiaCatholic]

I always suspected that Scandium and Yttrium would go over Lutetium and Lawrencium owing to the relative stability in ordinary air found at the Lutetium/Lawrencium end of those elements in comparison to the Lanthanum/Actinium end which tend to oxidize quickly from pure metal into powder.  Scandium and Yttrium are stable in air like Gadolinium through Lutetium.  So now there is only all the more (and much stronger) reason to rearrange the periodic table in that manner.

[aidanfehr]

Great video as always, Brady. Have you considered doing a video on the chemistry of spider silk and what makes it so strong? I'd love to see such a video.

[TheFeralBachelor]

I have no understanding of 90% of what your talking about but I am fascinated by all of this and with each video I learn a little something.

[senpie-if]

im a high school student who has attended national chemistry olympiad, and i can safely say that i agree perfectly. lutetium and lawrencium belong with the transition metals because they exhibit d-orbitals as their highest energy orbital shell, and thus have ionization energies that are expected of d-block elements based off of shielding calculations. actinium and lanthanium are f-block metals, and thus behave as such!!!! thank you for making this video!

[Nogli]

The movement of the elements after lanthanum and actinium is why we call that block underneath the 'lanthanides' and 'actinides'. So if the cut off point is now after barium and radium, should they not be the 'barides' and 'radides'?

[FanZ]

Anyone with enough of a background in chemistry to understand the ground-state-energy based order of filling of atomic orbitals based on quantum numbers, consistent with Hund's rule (AKA undergraduate General Chemistry I) could realize that Lutetium and Lawrencium would be more appropriate to include in Group 3 below Scandium and Yttrium instead of Lanthanum and Actinium, without needing any experimental validation based on first ionization energies. I'm not sure why Lathanum and Actinium ended up included there by default, considering that you'd think it was chemists that constructed the commonly-used periodic tables; but considering that only chemists of sufficient ability to recognize the mistake would likely be doing work in which it would matter, I suppose it's of minimal consequence. Still, for the sake of scientific accuracy, this is an error that should probably be corrected in textbook periodic tables; thank you for spreading awareness of it.