Difference between revisions of "Periodic table of elements"
From apm
m |
(spelling) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* atoms do not wear ever (well disregarding exotic things like proton decay) | * atoms do not wear ever (well disregarding exotic things like proton decay) | ||
* atoms have no tolerances - they are completely indistinguishable (same isotope) | * atoms have no tolerances - they are completely indistinguishable (same isotope) | ||
| − | * interatomic bonds are | + | * interatomic bonds are compliant (low stiffness) - assemblies can be bent a lot |
* interatomic bonds are strong (high force) - materials can be very strong | * interatomic bonds are strong (high force) - materials can be very strong | ||
Revision as of 07:34, 13 February 2016
the ultimate construction toy
The periodic table of elements is probably out of good reason (minimal complexity?) not much bigger than it needs to be to allow the emergence of life in our universe. The minimalistic and general nature of our set of chemical elements allows us to use it like a construction toy in other more straight foreward ways than life does.
The great things about atoms from an engineering prespective are:
- atoms do not wear ever (well disregarding exotic things like proton decay)
- atoms have no tolerances - they are completely indistinguishable (same isotope)
- interatomic bonds are compliant (low stiffness) - assemblies can be bent a lot
- interatomic bonds are strong (high force) - materials can be very strong
One could say that these properties of atoms makes the periodic table like the ultimate construction toy.
The PToE as a construction kit - applicability and limitations to this interpretation
(TODO: discuss the following:)
- electron deficiency bonds
- metallic bonds (diamondoid stiff complex integration)
- singlet triplet issues
Related
[todo: add an image of the periodic table with highlighted elements of interest]
