Helium and neon, the two lightest noble gases, have been traditionally positioned by IUPAC in the Group 18 of the Periodic Table of Elements, together with argon, and other unreactive or moderately reactive gaseous elements (krypton, xenon, radon), and oganesson. In this account we revive the old discussion on the possible placement of helium in the Group 2, while preserving the position of neon in Group 18. We provide quantum-chemical arguments for such scenario—as well as other qualitative and quantitative arguments—and (...) we describe previous suggestions in the literature which support it or put it into question. To this author’s own taste, He should be placed in Group 2. (shrink)

Every so often an experiment trying to give reliable evidence for a metallic hydrogen solid is reported. Such evidence is, however, not too convincing. As Eric Scerri has recently reiterated, “the jury is still out on that issue” . This search stems from the common spectroscopy shared by the hydrogen atom and all the alkali metal atoms, and perhaps is guided by a desire to place hydrogen atop the alkali metals, in Mendeleiev’s Table, reinforced by the fact pointed out by (...) Scerri that there is no other obvious place for hydrogen in said Table. But H2 is a light gas at room temperature, while Li, Na, K and the other alkali elements form solid metal crystals. At very low temperatures, of course, hydrogen solidifies, but it is formed by H2 molecules . Our purpose here is to use a new argument to break this impasse: “should H be grouped with the alkali metals with which it shares a common spectroscopy, but which solidifies in a completely different fashion?” This argument has been proposed before in a couple of papers in this journal to establish a similar question for He and the alkaline earths , as is discussed in “Precedents” section. (shrink)

In a recent paper in this Journal, one of us argued against placing He above Be in Mendeleiev’s system of the elements. In it the goal was to dispute the notion that in Mendeleiev’s system of the elements the location of He should in fact lie above Be, which has a very similar electronic configuration, rather than above the noble gas column. That paper was based on rather old, Hartree–Fock limit studies on the strikingly limited non-additive contributions in the He3 (...) and He4 systems in contrast with the much larger non-additivity obtained for the Be3, Be4 and Be5 oligomers. In a recent benchmark multireference Averaged Quadratic Coupled Cluster results on Be2 and Be3 we showed that the delocalized non-additive contribution comprises 94 % of the binding energy of Be3. Here we use this and other pertinent information (drawn from the same paper) to conclude that He may not be associated with Be in Mendeleiev’s Table, despite their quite similar spectroscopic ground states. Furthermore, we use the new results to show that the large non-additivity implies that less than 2 % of the Be3 binding is located in each Be pair contained within the Be trimer. The rest of the interaction energy is necessarily delocalized over all three Be atoms. This might actually announce the bulk properties (i.e. “the electron gas”) that in solid-state physics explain the large electric and heat conduction for the solid Be metal. Thus, in the case of beryllium the metallic characteristics are already evident in Be3, a far cry from the monoatomic helium gas. (shrink)