New element!

Lux.

Don't think this has been mentioned yet so I thought I may as well start a thread. According to BBC's news site, there will soon be an extra element added to the periodic table.
See link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8093374.stm

breadmonkey

The team, led by Sigurd Hofmann at the Centre for Heavy Ion Research, must propose a name for their find, before it can be formally added to the table.

I thought it had been decided that new elements would be called by the latin for the number of their atomic numbers?

cianl1

breadmonkey wrote: »

I thought it had been decided that new elements would be called by the latin for the number of their atomic numbers?

I thought that was only synthesised elements.

Michael Collins

breadmonkey wrote: »

I thought it had been decided that new elements would be called by the latin for the number of their atomic numbers?

cianl1 wrote: »

I thought that was only synthesised elements.

It is used for both, but it is only a temporary name until an official name is decided. The current temporary name for the new element E112 is "Ununbium" i.e. un-un-bi for 1-1-2 and then -ium...to make it sound element-like I guess!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_element_name

Kevster

Do any of yuo guys think that an element like this - which isn't stable for even a second - should be considered an element at all? I'm undecided either way, but I think that the periodic table would be 'nicer' if all of the elements in it were actually stable.

cianl1

Kevster wrote: »

Do any of you guys think that an element like this - which isn't stable for even a second - should be considered an element at all? I'm undecided either way, but I think that the periodic table would be 'nicer' if all of the elements in it were actually stable.

If we only allowed stable elements in the table, then we wouldn't know half of what we do about radioactivity and the periodic table would be nowhere near it's current size or shape. Take francium for example. Least stable of all naturally occuring elements and it's most stable isotope has a half-life of ~21/22 minutes. Do we discount it as an element simply because of that reason alone?

Kevster

Whatever I said was bound to be disputed - That's the nature of humanity. Well done cianl1, you've just partaken in an experiment without realising it.

breadmonkey

Kevster wrote: »

Whatever I said was bound to be disputed - That's the nature of humanity. Well done cianl1, you've just partaken in an experiment without realising it.

WTF?

Tar.Aldarion

Kevster wrote: »

Do any of yuo guys think that an element like this - which isn't stable for even a second - should be considered an element at all? I'm undecided either way, but I think that the periodic table would be 'nicer' if all of the elements in it were actually stable.

Yep, elements should definitly not be in it due to stability, I mean stability defines that something is an element right? Let's cut back to the 80 stable elements and ignore the rest.

cianl1

Kevster wrote: »

Whatever I said was bound to be disputed - That's the nature of humanity. Well done cianl1, you've just partaken in an experiment without realising it.

I DON'T LIKE BEING DECEIVED!

Take your little experiments to the psychology forum.

Marvinthefish

Does anyone know if there's a limit to this? Is there a maximum atomic number? In the bbc article cited, Professor Hofmann wants to get to 120. Could we go higher? 200? 300?

Tar.Aldarion

I think there are supposed to be a max amount in teh universe, can't remember much.

cianl1

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think there are supposed to be a max amount in teh universe, can't remember much.

Interesting point, I think. Perhaps we should open that one for debate, hmm? On a new thread maybe.

Professor_Fink

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I think there are supposed to be a max amount in teh universe, can't remember much.

Well, presumably that depends on how you feel about neutron stars!

usemyillusion12

there is an upper limit to the size due to the very short range of the strong nuclear force

Professor_Fink

usemyillusion12 wrote: »

there is an upper limit to the size due to the very short range of the strong nuclear force

Eh, yeah, hence the comment about neutron stars. There is a window of stability where gravity binds the nucleons together.

watty

I remember years ago that there was some suggestion that somewhere closer to the Inert Gas / Noble Gas column the synthetic elements might be usefully not as badly unstable?

A search shows

The element 118 nucleus was said to decay less than a millisecond after its formation by emitting an α-particle resulting in an isotope of element 116 (mass number 289, containing 116 protons and 173 neutrons). This isotope of element 116 undergoes further α-decay processes to an isotope of element 114 and so on down to at least element 106 (seaborgium).

From http://www.webelements.com/

Allegedly 112 is since 1996! http://www.webelements.com/ununbium/ BBC news old?

So I see it wasn't usefully less unstable

So according to that site only 117 remains to be "made" or "isolated" of the row aka 7th Period.

Presumably any 8th Period / Row "elements" will be even shorter lived.

Is it the case that 112 is going to get a Real Name soon?

watty

It's about 10 years since I looked at this stuff..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_(extended)
I found interesting,