J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 12 (2018) 92-95
doi: 10.17265/1934-7375/2018.03.002
Using Atomic Microstates and Atomic Number Parity in
Support of Lutetium and Lawrencium Classification as
Transition Metals
Valery Tsimmerman
Brookeville, Maryland 20833, USA
Abstract: Unlike other groups of elements, Group 3 constituency remains unsettled. This article argues that ground level microstates
and atomic number parity suggest Sc-Y-Lu-Lr Group 3 membership.
Key words: Transition metals, inner transition elements, lawrencium placement, rare earth metals, group 3 constituents, ground level,
atomic microstates, atomic number, parity, f-block.
1. The Lu/Lr Problem
Within two or three years, the IUPAC (International
Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) will decide
whether lutetium and lawrencium are transition metals
that belong to the third group of the periodic table, or
in a “footnote” with the rest of the inner transition
elements [1].
The periodic law proved to be an excellent
instrument for classification of chemical elements that
brought us the short form of the periodic table.
However, as discoveries that led to the understanding
of the atomic structure accumulated, the periodic table
underwent another modification and grew from the
original 8-group long arrangement to 32-elements
long (the long form) that was then shortened to
18-elements long, with a separate 14- or 15-elements
long sub-table containing “lanthanides” and
“actinides.” That sub-table is also called the “f-block”
after the spectroscopic term “fundamental”. This is
where the formulation of the periodic law started to
show some cracks. Should the f-block be 14-elements,
or 15-elements long? Should the 14-elements long
block extend from La(Ac) to Yb(No), or from Ce(Th)
Corresponding author: Valery Tsimmerman, independent
researcher, research fields: ORAH constructive technologies, Inc..
to Lu(Lr). Or, in other words, what are the exact limits
of the f-block? [2-4].
How can the f-block begin with La and Ac which
do not have f-electrons in their outer shells? Moreover,
why should lanthanum, which has no f-electrons at all
in its ground state, be the first element of the f-block?
Following that logic, the f-block should begin with
58Ce, the atom that features the first electron in the
f-orbital, together with 90Th, which has one f-electron
in its outer shell. However, given that there could be
only 14 f-orbitals, the f-block should then extend to
71Lu and 103Lr. But this is also problematic. Although
Lu and Lr have f-orbitals completely filled, quite
fitting for the terminal elements of f-block, their
valence electrons are s- and d-type, while in 70Yb and
102No, which also have f-orbitals filled, one of those
f-electrons actually participates in chemical bonds.
Furthermore, Sato et al. [5] report that lawrencium’s
first ionization potential is only 4.96 electron volts,
which suggests that Lu and Lr should be the first
elements of the third and fourth rows of the d-block,
not the f-block.
2. Using Microstates and Atomic Number
Parity to Resolve the Problem
In the past, most arguments with regard to
D
DAVID PUBLISHING
