livy123 Posted October 14, 2005 Posted October 14, 2005 Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help me out here. My chem book says that there are 88 naturally occuring elements... but other places say 90, or 92, or 83! Does anyone know what the 88 are and how they distinguish "naturally occuring" ? Thanks!
RyanJ Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Hi' date=' I was wondering if anyone could help me out here.My chem book says that there are 88 naturally occuring elements... but other places say 90, or 92, or 83! Does anyone know what the [b']88[/b] are and how they distinguish "naturally occuring" ? Thanks! There are actually 92 natural and a total of 116. How old if your book and at what study level is it based? The first elements that were found, things like Gols, Filver, Platinum, Copper etc. Were easy to find because they are mostly unreactive and thus exist in their pure (Or almost anyway) forms. Then later as technology and scienctific methods were improved the more reactive eleemtns were found, for example it was found that heating Magnetite with Coal made Iron, then electrolysis was used to extract the thigns like Potassium, Sodium And Cesium. Still later some elements were forums in the universe before they were identified here on Earth, a prome example being Helium (Named Helios after the sun where it was sound in spectroscopy). The as our technology moved still further we could then make our own by smashing smaller atoms together though these only last a fraction of a decond. The group 0 gasses are the one big exception to what I said above, even though they are really, really unreactive due to their stable electron configuration and high ionization energies, they were some of the last to be identified due to the fact they form no compounds (Not strictly true...) and are gasses, makes identifying them very hard Well... thats my summery of the elements, one more thing: thanks to the configuration of the periodic table missing elements properties were "evaluated" even before they ere forund! Incredible If you need anything more specific I'm shure there are loads of people here who could help you with that Cheers, Ryan Jones
livy123 Posted October 15, 2005 Author Posted October 15, 2005 Thanks... My book is "World of Chemistry", 2002 I think. I'm a hs sophomore, so perhaps it's not that accurate.
Kyrisch Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Also there is a debate because some elements are found in nature but only in insanely miniscule amounts. Like one element, the name has escaped me, is present on the earth but only about a teaspoon of it can be found in the entire planet.
T-Nemesis Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 ^Francium? The one's that aren't naturally occuring are ones which are only known to be created in nuclear reactions.
RyanJ Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Also there is a debate because some elements are found in nature but only in insanely miniscule amounts. Like one element, the name has escaped me, is present on the earth but only about a teaspoon of it can be found in the entire planet. Yes but even though they are very rare they still are found and therefor are classed as natural Cheers, Ryan Jones
The Thing Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Technetium is a synthetic element, and Promethium is created from nuclear reactions. There has been a lot of debates going on about Francium and Astatine being "naturally occuring" due to their insanely minuscule amounts.
RyanJ Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 What do you think about that The Thing? I personally think they occur in nature, however small and so are natural. Even if there is a small group of people in a tribe in the Amazon, they may be a tiny group but they are still people, in my oppinion the same applies here Cheers, Ryan Jones
The Thing Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Technetium occurs naturally only in Uranium ores as a result of spontaneous fission; Promethium is a byproduct of fission, and does not occur naturally on earth. Those two I think should not be counted as naturally occurring. Francium and Astatine are the two rarest elements on earth. For me, I go with the 88 naturally occuring elements (like ecoli), instead of the 92. But anywhere from 88 to 91 I don't really mind. I haven't a very strong opinion on this matter.
jdurg Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Actually, it has been discovered that plutonium and neptunium also occur naturally on earth. This is a result of uranium based ores being close to beryllium ores. The close proximity results in uranium atoms absorbing a neutron and forming neptunium which decays into plutonium. So while Np and Pu were once thought to be man-made elements, in reality they do occur naturally but in insanely small amounts.
RyanJ Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Actually, it has been discovered that plutonium and neptunium also occur naturally on earth. This is a result of uranium based ores being close to beryllium ores. The close proximity results in uranium atoms absorbing a neutron and forming neptunium which decays into plutonium. So while Np and Pu were once thought to be man-made elements, in reality they do occur naturally but in insanely small amounts. Wow, thats impressive - never heared that one before! I wonder is these elements actually occur in larger quantities in stars (Probably have to be 3rd or 4th generation). If a star goes supernova then it is known to form just about ever element currently known (And probably even some more too...) It would be interesting to know if these things can be found in any significant quantities in othe parts of the universe Cheers, Ryan Jones
The Thing Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Promethium, I know for a fact, has been found on the surface of a star in Andromeda from its spectrum.
RyanJ Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Promethium, I know for a fact, has been found on the surface of a star in Andromeda from its spectrum. That must be a pretty late generation star then because elements above lead cannot be formed directly through the thermo-nuclear reactions inside a star, anything after Iron takes in more energy than it emmits and so causies the start to go supernove... The star nust have absorbed that from an interstellar gas cloud and then incorperated into its self but its pretty neat none the less Funny how all the sciences interlink at times like this, its amazing too say the least. Heck, there could be elements made of completly different particles form the ones we know that cna be much larger than ones composed of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons though that is currently a matter for Quantum Physics rather than chemistry but if it is ever found out to be true then chemistry would have a new revolution! "The periodic table could be 3D in shape and extend through a lightyear in each direction" Corrected: Thanks for the correction jdurg Cheers, Ryan Jones
jdurg Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Promethium has an atomic number MUCH lower than that of lead RyanJ.
RyanJ Posted October 15, 2005 Posted October 15, 2005 Promethium has an atomic number MUCH lower than that of lead RyanJ. So it does - did I write lead there? That should have been Iron in any case, after Iron forms through fusion it then takes a hell of a lot of energy from the star thus causing its eventual death Sorry about that - don't know what i was thinking about there, will correct it Cheers, Ryan Jones
olmpiad Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 The mineral that Plutonium occurs in is called Muromontite. And yes, there is both Uranium and Beryllium present in it.
RyanJ Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 how is plutonium extracted?? Have a loom here Cheers, Ryan Jones
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now