# Chart of the metals



## 4metals (Feb 28, 2014)

I was at a refinery last year and I saw on the wall one of the best charts that a refiner could wish to have (my opinion of course!) anyway the chart was from 1962 and I could not find who made it as the name was not visible on the chart, only the date and the name Chart of the Metals. So I took a picture and have since entered all of the data into a spreadsheet and I thought it would be nice to share it. If anyone does know the source please let me know, it is not my intent to infringe on copyrighted work but as the date 1962 was plainly visible I think any protection has expired.


View attachment chart of the metals.xlsx


----------



## skyos (Feb 28, 2014)

Thanks


----------



## Geo (Feb 28, 2014)

That is a great chart. Thank you very much.


----------



## Dawg (Feb 28, 2014)

Thank you


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Feb 28, 2014)

Nice chart.

Thank you,
Dave


----------



## goldsilverpro (Feb 28, 2014)

I remember that chart. I used to see it in a lot of labs. It was one of the standard 5 or 6 charts found in most of those thick lab supply catalogs, like Sargent-Welch or VWR. 

Maybe they stopped making it when somebody noticed that the valence of +4 for gold was wrong or, at best, extremely rare. +1 and +3 are the most common, by far. +2 and +5 exist in rare occasions. I find no mention of +4 anywhere.


----------



## FrugalRefiner (Feb 28, 2014)

goldsilverpro said:


> Maybe they stopped making it when somebody noticed that the valence of +4 for gold was wrong or, at best, extremely rare. +1 and +3 are the most common, by far. +2 and +5 exist in rare occasions. I find no mention of +4 anywhere.


I could be wrong, but I thought it was indicating the number of different valences that might occur, not necessarily what they were. I don't know why they treated manganese and chromium differently.

Dave


----------



## goldsilverpro (Feb 28, 2014)

FrugalRefiner said:


> goldsilverpro said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe they stopped making it when somebody noticed that the valence of +4 for gold was wrong or, at best, extremely rare. +1 and +3 are the most common, by far. +2 and +5 exist in rare occasions. I find no mention of +4 anywhere.
> ...


In the 2nd column, it says "Valence +". I assume that means all the numbers in that row are +'s. Also, they listed the valences of Mn and Cr. Why wouldn't they also list those of gold?
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/aa122002a.htm

You don't see the term "valence" much anymore. Instead the much simpler term, "oxidation number or state", is used. I know the term "valence" has a more technical meaning. Way back, we used the term "valence" to mean "oxidation number", which was sort of correct.

Other than that, it's a great chart for anyone, but especially for newbies. All should print it out and hang it on the wall. Rows 6-15 are essentially different ways of looking at the Electromotive Series. The metals on the right want to be metals and those on the left want to be compounds, all in progressive order.


----------



## 4metals (Feb 28, 2014)

The original had a typo in the spelling of Bismuth and I took the liberty to change the valence states of gold as GSP pointed out. 

Think of this as the Chart of Metals approved by the GRF.

View attachment chart of the metals.xlsx


----------



## solar_plasma (Mar 1, 2014)

The original chart uses "valence" as _the maximum number of univalent atoms that may combine with the atom_ (IUPAC), - except managnese and chromium. I think this is of little usability. Better would be to show all oxidation states possible, with the most common states printed thickly.


----------

