The Revised Periodic Table of Chemical Elements and New Insights About the History of Alternative Models

This is an update to my recent postings (Einstein's Voice, LawPundit) and my website page as originally posted in the year 2000 at LexiLine -- see the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive.

A reader has alerted me to the fact that Charles Janet came up with the same so-called "left-step" periodic arrangement of chemical elements that I found in 1972 already in the year 1928 . Indeed, there is a recent article referenced at the Wikipedia article on Janet referencing "Stewart, Philip (April 2010). "Charles Janet: unrecognized genius of the Periodic System". Foundations of Chemistry 12: 5–15. DOI:10.1007/s10698-008-9062-5".

As written at the Wikipedia:

"In 1927 [Janet] turned his attention to the periodic table and wrote a series of six articles in French, which were privately printed and never widely circulated."

Even a French biography of him online currently does not have the table as far as I can tell. Biographie synthétique de Charles Janet. I do not speak French to this day so even if I had done any kind of deep research back in those days in 1972, prior to the Internet, the likelihood I would have found Janet's work in the USA is small.

Indeed, back in 1972 I would not have imagined that someone had come up with the same arrangement as I had found and thus I really had no reason to look for previous discoverers since I would have assumed that if someone had had the same idea, it would be well known. I myself sent off a letter to the Scientific American about my "discovery" of the revised periodic table but they paid no attention to it.

Accordingly, as it was just a hobby anyway, I went on with my life and only put up my discovery on the Internet at LexiLine in 2000 when I started my first website online, and when, to my knowledge, there was nothing at all online about alternative models of the Periodic Table, as far as I know. Amazingly, no one, prior to today, has ever paid any attention to my revised period table or commented about it.

That attitude in science epitomizes one of the reasons that I left the study of Biology, Physics and Chemistry in high school and college, by the way, and went on to law and legal studies, leaving the sciences as a hobby.

I was good in the sciences in pre-college studies, already earning college credits in Chemistry in high school, for example, and was sent off as a young student to a science fair where they presented an electron microscope that showed we had 46 chromosomes instead of 48. I dutifully reported on that development in class upon returning to school, whereupon the teacher said to the class immediately afterward that this information was fine but that 48 would be the correct answer for the final exam in that class and for any other test purposes until it was changed in her Biology textbook. That is a true story. That was it for me for Biology. Who wanted to live in the past?

My experience in Physics in high school was much the same. I came up with an algorithm for a complicated class assignment involving the calculation of total resistance in a circuit and my solution was correct, taking half the paper that the accepted method required. Rather than the teacher showing interest in the algorithm, the teacher tried to ridicule the solution in class, unsuccessfully, as I defended the clear logic of it, but that was it for me for Physics. Too much inertia.

And then I had an excessively long hours-long Chemistry lab early on Saturday mornings -- not in my circadian rhythm at all -- where the emphasis was on writing nice-looking lab reports and playing with moles and valences and the like rather than on examining the basic theoretical questions that were of interest to me. That was it for Chemistry. Too many vials.

So the study of law (jurisprudence) it was, where the emphasis was on the reasoning behind the laws and on problem solutions, rather than on repetition of what people already knew (excepted here in law are bar exams and similar, which primarily test knowledge memorized through law review courses and not through Socratic law study, and it is mostly knowledge that any idiot can look up and seldom needs in law practice). But to return to the periodic table ....

I am in fact quite pleased to find that someone in fact came up with the same periodic table arrangement as I did, because it does seem to me to be quite logical "in the broad view" to view the chemical elements this way.

Hence, it is gratifying to see "like minds" out there and I will definitely be doing some study of Charles Janet in the future, although it is clear from his alternative tables that he did not really understand what he had found.

The reader -- already cited above -- writes that a certain L.M. Simmons had the same arrangement idea in 1947 (A modification of the periodic table, but that publication even today is not accessible to me online because I am not an ACS member -- that's science! ... sadly). That same reader also notes that Edward Mazurs "publicized" the "left-step arrangement" in 1957, but in fact it was a "private printing" titled Types of Graphic Representation of the Periodic System of Chemical Elements, to which I could not possibly have had access. A revised accessible edition was first published in 1974 as Graphic Representations of the Periodic System During One Hundred Years.

I find online now that there is even a detailed article at the Wikipedia on Alternative periodic tables. See also Periodic Tables by David V. Black. where Black notes that Mazurs collected all sorts of alternative periodic tables and -- to my great astonishment -- was a fellow Latvian as a Professor at the University of Riga. As Black writes, and this is the important thing:

"Mazurs came to the conclusion – and so have I – that a left-step table works best....".

I am not now going to research all the myriad other alternative tables presented in the interim, but wish to point out that apparently none of these previous researchers realized the significance of the "left-step" revised periodic arrangement in showing how the underlying principle is gravitational for the elements as a whole, rather than viewing each element individually or in some "category", as chemists are wont to do, based on their "properties". I was not interested in chemical properties. I was interested in the underlying principle of physics that governed chemical element formation. All periodic tables -- even if useful -- that depart from the underlying gravitational principle are in my opinion not fully accurate.

A most recent article from July 20, 2011 at ChemistryViews.org in At Last A Definitive Periodic Table? (DOI: 10.1002/chemv.201000107) by David Bradley reports essentially that some observers currently still virtually reduce the 1, 4, 9, 16 sequence to mere "numerology", talking about odd numbers and all sorts of irrelevant extraneous things, thus showing that chemists and physicists are still unable to get away from their familiar world of electron shells, rather than trying to find the "basic" force of nature underlying those shells.

In other words, even though there have been predecessors to my own arrangement of the periodic table as far back as the year 1928, scientists still do not "get" what the periodic table revised in this way means.

The principle of chemical element formation is the same as the acceleration of an object in a vacuum, except that we have no "distance" (in the accelerative sense) but rather instead increasing "mass" -- well, that is the same as the idea of the relation between the Higgs Field and mass, and therefore, the Higgs Field is no different than this basic GRAVITATIONAL PRINCIPLE, which the Higgs Boson Theory ignores completely.

Physicists and chemists in explaining the inner workings of the elements do not stick to the gravitational principle but create artificial constructs such as "the weak force" or "the strong force", which in my opinion merely shows that they do not understand how to measure gravity at the atomic and subatomic level.

I.e. the elements in my opinion are created according to the gravitational principle internally, and it is up to Physics and Chemistry down the road to put their concepts of strong and weak forces into that basic gravitational system -- and this also applies to the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson. If there is a Higgs Field, that Higgs Field is gravity.

Simple Cartoons Explaining the Higgs Mechanism & Dark Matter

Ben Parr via PHD Comics on Vimeo has two exceptionally useful cartoon videos on Particle Physics, the Higgs Boson & Dark Matter Explained

Higgs, The Aether, Gravity, The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements Revised, and the Gravitational Principle of the Universe

"Since there is no DISTANCE involved in the building of the elements,
the gravitational effect exerts itself on the mass of the elements."
- Andis Kaulins, February 13, 1972

We see this process in the spectral emission lines of hydrogen (Bohr model)
that are in the clear relationship 1, 4, 9 and 16, i.e. 1², 2², 3² and 4²
as below (Wikipedia), representing the electron orbits in the Bohr model,
i.e. "the energy of an electron in any one of these orbits
is inversely proportional to the square of the integer n."):



 ....1²....2²........... 3²............................................. 4².........

I wrote the first line found now at the top of this page 40 years ago when I came up with a suggested revision of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements (shown below), a revision based on the hypothesis that what the spectral lines of hydrogen showed was applicable to ALL elements taken to together, as the basic gravitational principle of their construction. That Table has been online at LexiLine for many years and no one has paid any attention to it.

[please read this page first and then see the update to this page on previous similar alternative tables - I am not the first to find the "left-step" model]

In the aftermath of the alleged Higgs Boson discovery, I drew a new illustration as below, and the original revised chart you will find further below that in this posting:



The gravitational principle is similar to the alleged Higgs Boson in The Standard Model, with the difference, of course, that as far as The Periodic Table is concerned, electrons are fermions and not bosons, as Jon Butterworth explained last year at The Guardian's Life & Physics in Bosons and Fermions:

"Chemical elements consist of an atomic nucleus surrounded by electrons.
Because electrons are fermions, not all the electrons can be sucked into
the lowest energy level around the nucleus.... So as more electrons are added around a nucleus, they have to sit in higher and higher energy levels - less and less tightly bound to  the nucleus, in general. The behaviour of a chemical element - how it reacts with other elements and binds to form molecules, and where it sits in the periodic table - is driven by how tightly bound its outermost electrons really are." [emphasis added]

We regard that binding force to be gravity -- on a subatomic scale, regardless of how one labels it. Indeed, internal GRAVITATION was the basis of our suggested revision of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, 40 years ago:

THE PERIODIC TABLE
OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS:
A SUGGESTED REVISION
Originally Discovered February 13, 1972 by Andis Kaulins

The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements used in mainstream science
is more than 100 years old and severely outdated.
It is retained because mainstream chemistry is used to it.
It does not correctly represent nature.

Below is the standard mainstream version from 1972
showing "God's footnotes" (typical for the academics)
the actinides and lanthanides.
For the current status of the periodic table see
Webelements.com - Period Table of Chemical Elements

Mainstream Periodic Table 1972



The above table is disorderly and requires
"God's footnotes"
for the actinides and lanthanides.
Nature can not possibly work this way.
The simplicity has been camouflaged
and replaced with unnecessary complexities.

Dmitri Mendeleev
originally made the above table using the chemical elements then known
by arranging cards on his living room floor.

In his era, it was a great step forward.
Today, it is a Model-T Ford,
but people are used to using it,
and have retained it for that reason.
Convenience is a higher priority than correctness.

A "correct" table of the elements
would show the general laws of nature immediately.
It is in fact possible to construct such a corrected table,
showing the gravitational law at the root of all of matter,
for this process extends in both directions!

The Kaulins Revised Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements



The above graphic stems from the year 1972.

Since then more elements have been discovered, all fitting into this scheme.
For the current status see
Webelements.comPeriod Table of Chemical Elements

The principle at the root of the periodic table of elements is gravity.



The elements are formed by internal gravity,
as in the spectral lines of Hydrogen,
where the intervals are 1, 4, 9, 16
-- those are --
the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 squared
i.e. 1², 2², 3² and 4².

The 4 elements from H to Be
build one entity of 4
so that 4 divided by 4 = 1 = 1².

The 16 elements from B to Ca build the next entity of 16
so that 16/4 = 4 = 2².

The elements from Sc to Ba
build the next entity of 36
so that 36/4 = 9 = 3².

The elements from La to No. 120
build the next entity of 64
so that 64/4 = 16 = 4².

What we see in the spectral lines of hydrogen
thus applies to all the chemical elements viewed as a whole
and subsequently also the structure of the universe generally.
The electron rings show how matter in the universe distributes itself.

The process of element-building is comparable
to a mass which falls under the influence of gravity as follows:



The above chart is Galileo and Newton revisited,
but at the atomic level, it accords with Einstein's E=mc2 energy analysis,
which is calculated -- as explained by physicist Dr. William Watson, DEO,
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information --
in Celebrating Einstein: E=mc2 - What's the Speed of Light Got to Do With It?

"Since the velocity of the object as seen by the moving observer,
"v", is the same after it emits the energy as it was before,
the only way its kinetic energy can change is if its mass changes.
Evidently, the mass changes by L/c² -- by the energy the object emits (in our frame of reference), divided by the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Since, as Einstein pointed out, the fact that the energy taken from the object turns into light doesn't seem to make any difference, he concluded that whenever an object emits an amount of energy L of any type, its mass diminishes by L/c², so that the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains ."

__________

Update, 40 years later....July 4, 2012....in the days of the Higgs Boson....

The basic logic of my illustrations above corresponds to the more modernly called "Higgs Field", a theoretical construct which corresponds in its root conception to what the Ancient Greeks called the "aether".

Forty years ago I thought that the aether of the Greeks was -- and I also think now that the posited Higgs Field is -- nothing other than our familiar (but unexplained) all-pervasive gravity viz. gravitation, which governs the motion and interaction of all bodies (collections of "mass") in space. Indeed, gravitation "accelerates all objects at the same rate" if there is no resistance.

In the metaphysical sense we might view such physical bodies as "something" and the corresponding space as "nothing" in which "somethings" are found.

Space for physicists is often defined in terms of "extension" -- similar and with no more accuracy than Lewis Carroll's definition of his term "WABE" (quoted from Through the Looking Glass):

'And "THE WABE" is the grass-plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?' said
Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
'Of course it is. It's called "WABE," you know, because it goes a long
way before it, and a long way behind it—'
'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
'Exactly so.'

Bodies in space are neither particles nor waves per se and that is why Physics speaks modernly of a matter wave, combining the two concepts. A unified concept like matter wave is necessary because the terms "particle" (viz. "matter") and "wave" merely describe what we are able to observe (i.e. particles, and the way particles move) --  but not both at the same time -- something called the uncertainty principle in physics.

Einstein used the example of a moving locomotive. Where is that locomotive at any given time when moving, and do we look to the front, back or middle of the locomotive when we make our measurements?

At the subatomic level, physicists face this problem all the time -- everything is motion, and maybe what their experimental results show is in fact either the front or the back or the middle of any given body, or wave of motion - like the differing poles of a magnet -  which may account for things like electromagnetism and the weak interaction being viewed as two different things, whereas in fact they are the same as the electroweak reaction.

Indeed, perhaps the "three color flavors" of quarks are nothing more than measurements of one or more identical quarks in different positions as a "particle" viz. "wave" located at different parts of the locomotive, so to speak, top, front, back, bottom, sides, etc. We suspect as much, since no single quark or equally elusive companion gluon has ever been isolated, allegedly because they are glued together too strongly. -- Or because the theoretical model is flawed. -- The physicists see the flavored and colored quarks like this (two "up" quarks (U) and one "down" quark (D) -- surely one of the most forced, and surely erroneous, theoretical explanations of nature you will ever see:



The Scientific American had the following image including the gluons, via the Química wiki:



What is important to emphasize time and again is that all of these are merely purely theoretical constructions that aid scientists to explain how things work.

Human theories of matter and space in Physics must also be able to account for things like light (electromagnetic radiation) or energy, which are fundamental "relations" in a cosmic world that has no singularities, i.e. no objects that are fully independent of other objects in the universe.

Everything is interconnected.

Physical "bodies" in the larger sense are not only things like suns, planets or distant galaxies, but also include the chemical elements, which
-- in our view --
provide us with essential information about how the universe works, for the rules that operate here will be the same as operate throughout the universe, only on a smaller scale.

New Scientist TV has One-Minute Illustrated Higgs Physics Short-Course Animation that In Our Opinion Shows Why Extreme Skepticism is Warranted on the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field, Both Essentially being Artificial Constructions

Laws of physics are also "laws", and that is why we also cover them at LawPundit, when warranted, to those of you out there who may be wondering.

Sandrine Ceurstemont, editor of New Scientist TV, has the report with the physics animation by Henry Reich in New Scientist TV: One-Minute Physics: Why the Higgs is the missing link.

See the hadron collider "blip" at Eufisica here:

http://eufisica.blogspot.de/2012/07/hst2012-cern-day-4.html

and the proposed explanation at DailyKos here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/04/1104739/-Higgs-Boson-Announcement-v5-0-DISCOVERY

So, as you can read there, the whole thing is basically a bit like a slight-of-hand scientific Houdini trick, positing at the start of the experiment an invisible, unproven UNIVERSAL Higgs Field everywhere in the universe that allegedly gives elementary particles mass by slowing them down and the bigger the particles are, the more they are slowed down
-- gee, the alleged Higgs Field looks like gravity to us.

Significantly, all-pervasive gravity is excluded from the Higgs explanation of the "universe" -- a rather considerable exclusion, we think, throwing great doubt on the veracity of a theory that excludes the parameter of gravity.

But then again, we are not excited wishful thinking physicists dancing the "bosonova" (sic) about finding an alleged "God particle".

People have to distinguish what has actually been measured from what they WANT that measure to represent. There is a significant difference there.

All the hype in the mainstream media is totally misplaced.

BLIP ! (see there).

Alice in Wonderland Physics: BLIP: The "Boson Boys" Return: CERN At It Again With Alleged Invisible Massless Particle That "Acquires" Mass in an Invisible Higgs Field

TIME, Real and Imaginary 

An Allegory by Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834)

ON the wide level of a mountain's head

(I knew not where, but 'twas some faery place),

Their pinions, ostrich-like, for sails outspread,

Two lovely children run an endless race,

A sister and a brother

This far outstripp'd the other;

Yet ever runs she with reverted face,

And looks and listens for the boy behind:

For he, alas! is blind!

O'er rough and smooth with even step he pass'd,

And knows not whether he be first or last.  

via Bartleby.com, Great Books Online

The Oxford Book of English Verse: 1250–1900

Arthur Quiller-Couch, ed. 1919

__________

We found another one of those "bosonic" announcements in the news today by the "boson boys". Here is a picture of what can only be regarded to be absurd "bosonic string theory" - i.e. the Universe as sort of like a sow's ear.

They are at it again with the alleged Higgs Boson, determined to find what they want to find, masterfully tweaking, shifting, adjusting, and combining data sets of several experiments, and now once again alleging the find of an "invisible" particle faster than the speed of light:

CERN Confirms Existence of a Particle Consistent With Higgs Boson

Here's the theory -- an allegedly invisible massless particle, the Higgs Boson, moves through an allegedly invisible Higgs Field and acquires "mass".
[This could be just a form of cosmic stalking -- as the "boson" massless particle just sails eternally in the field until "mass" finds it, and presto, love at first sight].

Higgs had to assume the invisibility of both the particle and the field since we would otherwise have seen these rare birds by now would we have not?

Before their molted emergence from invisibility they are just that -- invisible.
Gone yesterday, here today.

Hence, an electronic "BLIP" of sorts is the explanation of the universe i.e.
invisible particles move through invisible fields and presto -- chameleon wonders - there they are, as the massed particles we know.
It is a magical transformation that reminds of the works of Lewis Carroll.

Yep. Alice in Wonderland physics.

Let us look at the Wikipedia definition of these unseen bosons. We have added the bracketed material to better explain what in fact are merely "theoretical constructs" and not actually particles observed in nature, although we suspect, that, once found, they will necessarily be a "deep purple" virtually heavy metal, like the ensuing money that the physicists will obtain to continue upon and expand their research of the invisible after finding their first invisible particle:

"Bosons contrast with fermions [no one has ever seen either of them, of course] which obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Two or more fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (see Pauli exclusion principle) ... [but] bosons with the same energy [that's E] can occupy the same place in space [a place that is simply empty (!), unless it is occupied, but by two at once?] [so that] bosons are often force carrier particles [forces of what?]. In contrast, fermions are usually associated with matter [and not its opposite, of course, not that we have ever seen it] (although in quantum physics the distinction between the two concepts is not clear cut [that is the Matter"horn" of physics]).

Bosons may be either elementary, like photons, or composite, like mesons [hadronic subatomic particles, one quark plus one antiquark, bound by strong interaction -- well, a weak interaction just might not hold them together.].

All observed bosons have integer spin, as opposed to fermions, which have half-integer spin [well, no one really knows what this spin is, but it looks to us like half-a spin, uh....]... in accordance with the spin-statistics theorem ... in any reasonable [God forbid unreasonable!] relativistic quantum field theory.... [so that as for "spin", the physicists rolled the dice and that is what they came up with].

While most bosons are composite particles, in the Standard Model, there are six bosons which are elementary:

• the four gauge bosons (γ · g · W± · Z) [Photons as carriers of the electromagnetic interaction, W and Z bosons as carriers of the weak interaction and Gluons as carriers of the strong interaction, except at low energies "because they are color-charged, and subject to color confinement"] [well, they are then perhaps not "deep purple", but more of a "Clockwork Orange"]
• the Higgs boson (H0)
• the graviton (G). [this is my favorite but I have hopped up and down trying to find it, with no particle appearance yet, and nobody else has ever seen one yet either]"

So, there you have it. "The basic words" of modern physics. Lewis Carroll told us essentially the same thing in different words in Through the Looking Glass in the year 1872, as Humpty Dumpty gave "the word" to Alice on "words", "semantics" and "pragmatics", much like understanding hadrons, bosons, fermions, quarks, photons, mesons and gravitons --- which no one has ever seen of course -- but the physicists swear they are there, and they have "words" for them, much like Humpty Dumpty explains "glory" -- which after all, is what the "boson" physicists are after, sort of a royal "deep purple", the heavy metal compensation of "glory":

"`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'
...

[as for cosmic things and the parameters of physics]

'And "THE WABE" is the grass-plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?'
said Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.
'Of course it is. It's called "WABE," you know, because it
goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it--'
'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.
'Exactly so. "

Well, now what about all that talk about bosons and ENERGY and SPACE. How come they are all flying around with no mass at all in something that is nothing at all? We have assumed up to now that if E=mc2 then m can not be zero, now can it, so the problem here, as always with these instrument measurements is just WHAT are they measuring?

Well, BLIPS of energy.
Sort of like "THE WABE" of Lewis Carroll "here, there, and everywhere".
Exactly.

Strangely, the "particle" out of which the entire universe is allegedly made is "elusive" -- which makes sense -- since the particle is invisible, as is the field in which it moves. But mathematical constructs "demand" it.

Let us be frank.
It is much more fun to measure what can not be seen
-- the religions do this all time, by the way, in their way.

So the physicists now seek their own "God particle", as it were,
a particle with no mass, flying around in the middle of nowhere.
Just as God created all, out of the void.
Get the picture?

But how do you measure invisibility?
Maybe these invisible particles are the size of elephants.
Good grief. What would we do then?

After all, if they have no mass, then size is not even an issue.
They can be any size they want -- just as words could mean anything he wanted to Humpty Dumpty, as he said, "'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.'"

And of course, that is what these modern "words" in physics are all about.

Modern scientists have their "master" and billion-dollar machines to prove it (such as CERN's atom smasher, the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider, used for finding "a Higgs Boson") -- and to prove their "words".

So, as could be expected, the scientists now announce that they can in fact tell us -- once again after an initial false start -- that a Higgs Boson visited THEM --  leaving a BLIP on their desk ... moving at faster than the speed of light, not visible of course, but with a "shadow" of a message to the world.
BLIP.

What more do you want?

Happily we can say, that we too are expecting a "boson" type of speed visitation this coming Christmas, when "more rapid than eagles" Santa Claus "the invisible caller" calls, in the words of Clement Clarke Moore in 'Twas the Night Before Christmas:

"More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and call'd them by name:
"Now! Dasher, now! Dancer, now! Prancer, and Vixen,
"On! Comet, on! Cupid, on! Dunder and Blixem;
"To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
"Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!"
As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky;
So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,
With the sleigh full of Toys - and St. Nicholas too:
...
He sprung to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew, like the down of a thistle:
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight-
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night."

Now, that is FAST.
BLIP.

And we did not even get to the heavyweight Twinkie of physics,
the muon, which may be used for an even more expensive physics elementary particle collision machine in the future, the muon collider, but that is for another date.


Update: Just for information

Just for general facts and information....

The Muon Collider and the Higgs are discussed at the
Quantum Diaries.