Ladeira Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I was thinking. There are lots of artificial elements in the periodic table, most of them are extremely heavy and they're usually elements which have a half life of some minutes, seconds, or less like Ununoctium. Is it right to put them in the periodic table? I don't think it's useful. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 They're not useful at all for chemistry (you can't sell a bottle of a material that lasts a few milliseconds), but for nuclear reactions they're useful, and they'll be more useful as we start smashing heavier and heavier atoms together with more and more energy. Depends on what you're using the table for, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Recently (on 04-28-2008) we discussed a newly found element: element 118, atomic weight 292. It was reported that it's found in small quantities in nature, and that it's stable. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32555 In the discussion more links and info are given (so click the link ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Recently (on 04-28-2008) we discussed a newly found element: element 118, atomic weight 292. It was reported that it's found in small quantities in nature, and that it's stable. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32555 In the discussion more links and info are given (so click the link ) That's not 118 though, but 122. Element 118 (ununoctium) is very unstable, and was detected a few years back. And there hasn't been any confirmation on 122 (or any elements above 118) as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Doh! Apologies for the mistake, and thanks for correcting it. Apparently I am not able to simply copypaste a 3 digit number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Recently (on 04-28-2008) we discussed a newly found element: element 118, atomic weight 292. It was reported that it's found in small quantities in nature, and that it's stable. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32555 In the discussion more links and info are given (so click the link ) Stable? No. Naturally occurring, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it probably IS! and since these manmade elements fit all the requirements to be an element, then certainly they should be in the PTOE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 There's significant evidence that if we keep on building up we should get to an island of stability around the next magic number pairs and singles. That would be rather cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vts Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 (edited) I strongly believe that there should be a naturally occurring super heavy element, but that would be most likely element 120 and there are few reason for that: According to a nuclear shell theory the nucleus of the element 120 would be the most "round" one. It is in the island of stability. Also, in his late articles, Janet, the author of Left Step Periodic table uses mathematical justification for the Periodic System with total of 120 elements max. And finally, the periodic system built strictly in accordance with the quantum numbers would perfectly fit into the tetrahedron with the edge of 9 units, where one unit is determined by the quantum number "ml", that represents pair of electrons. It is possible that elements with heavier nuclei exist, but they would not be naturally occurring. On the other side, the naturally occurring element 120 would be nice punctuation mark in the Periodic System. The team of scientists that traced the element in question, determined its mass 292, but, in regard to the number of protons, they were not sure. They said that it is about 122. So, it could be element 124, or 120! Edited July 2, 2008 by Vts corrected word ocurring to occuring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Is it right to put them in the periodic table? I don't think it's useful. What do you think? Simply existing is a good enough reason to put an element in the periodic table. It's not the 'periodic table of useful elements.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 If you don't put them in the periodic table, where do you put them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I strongly believe that there should be a naturally occurring super heavy element, but that would be most likely element 120 and there are few reason for that: According to a nuclear shell theory the nucleus of the element 120 would be the most "round" one. It is in the island of stability. Also, in his late articles, Janet, the author of Left Step Periodic table uses mathematical justification for the Periodic System with total of 120 elements max. And finally, the periodic system built strictly in accordance with the quantum numbers would perfectly fit into the tetrahedron with edge 9 units, where one unit is determined by the quantum number "ml", that represents pair of electrons. It is possible that elements with heavier nuclei exist, but they would not be naturally occurring. On the other side, the naturally ocurring element 120 would be nice punctuation mark in the Periodic System. The team of scientists that traced the element in question, determined its mass 292, but, in regard to the number of protons, they were not sure. They said that it is about 122. So, it could be element 124, or 120! We already have a thread on this alternate periodic table. Discussion of it belongs there. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32628 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladeira Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 I thought all the discussion proposed very interesting. The points I was wanting to make clear are: Is it possible to study the properties of those elements in sufficient time? And, are these properties useful for chemistry even if those elements can't be "used"? And, getting away from the question of just "putting them on the periodic table", can those elements be recognized as elements, which we can "see"??? Aren't they just like "genetic modification" (comparing to biology). When I say "those elements", I want to mean those who are artificial and takes one, two... seconds or less to lower the energy level (sorry, if I used a wrong expression). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 There are predictions about the chemistry of very unstable elements since we know how the orbitals are filled. For example, the thus far undetected elements 117 and 119 are predicted to be a halogen and an alkali metal, respectively. However, because of relativistic effects they are likely to display some unusual properties compared to other elements of their groups. This doesn't mean that researchers are going to try to get a 1ms half-life metal to form an oxide though, I guess it's just something you can predict fairly easily. Sure, you can study the properties of the atoms but not with conventional chemical methods. On the subject of not being able to "see" the very unstable elements, it isn't a very good argument because a) we can detect them and b) they count as elements (atoms distinguished by their proton number), and thus have a place in the periodic table. The periodic table isn't an exclusive "club" for elements that have uses in chemistry. Sort of pretending that an atom that lasts half a millisecond doesn't exist is silly, since we don't do that with subatomic particles with half-lives below nanoseconds either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hermanntrude Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 here is a post I wrote on a non-scientific forum elsewhere, perhaps you'll find it interesting reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladeira Posted July 4, 2008 Author Share Posted July 4, 2008 here is a post I wrote on a non-scientific forum elsewhere, perhaps you'll find it interesting reading I loved the topic you've put on this other forum. I'm feeling like someone with many stone-shooters wanting to kill me. Now, I got your point of turning these elements stable. I admit now I'm completely wrong =\ I don't have how to support my argument. Thanks for the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioneer Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Technetium (pronounced /tɛkˈniːʃɪəm/) is the lightest chemical element with no stable isotope. It is a synthetic element. It has atomic number 43 and is given the symbol Tc. The chemical properties of this silvery grey, crystalline transition metal are intermediate between rhenium and manganese. Technetium is very light but is also artificial. It may exist in others places in the universe but on the earth. We need to make it in the lab. One may never know how high elements can go under natural conditions. We don't add high gravity when we manufacture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazarwolf Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Has anyone heard of "The island of stability"? it should be on wikipedia.. Its a pretty neat prediction, Im not sure how scewed my thoughts are. I remember thinking some of the predicted propertys sounded like the wierd materials ive heard from roswell reports... not that I really beleive in that crap. P.S. Oh fine I guess its not that hard, but linking to wikipedia is so.... something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 18, 2008 Share Posted September 18, 2008 Has anyone heard of "The island of stability"? it should be on wikipedia.. Its a pretty neat prediction, Im not sure how scewed my thoughts are. I remember thinking some of the predicted propertys sounded like the wierd materials ive heard from roswell reports... not that I really beleive in that crap. P.S. Oh fine I guess its not that hard, but linking to wikipedia is so.... something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability *points to his post above... number 8* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazarwolf Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Yeah im a bit of a skim reader. Thx for alerting me to my tendency to skip short posts. I kinda liked old looking bboards... less graphics to consume time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Yeah im a bit of a skim reader. Thx for alerting me to my tendency to skip short posts. I kinda liked old looking bboards... less graphics to consume time. heeh just to clarify it wasn't a critisim just answering you first question "has anyone heard of" I tend to skim as well sometimes, especially if I've been away a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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