VicS
Well-Known Member
Which did you think was correct? ...... before checking Wikipedia or the latest interactive Periodic Table from the Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table.
Last edited:
Which did you think was correct? ...... before checking Wikipedia or the latest Periodic Table from the Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table.
I guess it's a quid pro quo for getting our spelling of aluminium in![]()
how about a billion000?Don't get me started on a billion losing 3 zeros.
...
Don't get me started on a billion losing 3 zeros.
A Trillion (US version).So what is the name for
1,000,000,000,000?
Which did you think was correct? ...... before checking Wikipedia or the latest interactive Periodic Table from the Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table.
so have they changed the spelling of sulphuric acid too?
not just the royal society of chemistry i'm afraid. IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry - the world authority on chemical nomenclature, terminology, standardized methods for measurement, atomic weights and other critically evaluated data ; http://www.iupac.org/) says Sulfur![]()
Which did you think was correct? ...... before checking Wikipedia or the latest interactive Periodic Table from the Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table.
No question. The English spelling has ph in it - the other is yanky vernacular. Why the RSC has erred on that and spelled aluminium in the English way I do not know.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the different american spellings were the result of a serious planned exercise to make more sensible the weird english spellings, and not just divergent cultures. And I also seem to remember that aluminium was discovered by a yank and the historically correct spelling is the yankee one.