The Heaviest Element

[Arx]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/science/17heavy.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin] (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/science/17heavy.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin)

Element 118, named for the number of protons in it's nucleus, was reported for 1,000th of a second. If this element is confirmed, it will "considerably expand the borders of the material world."

[Hacky]

They are currently calling it Baby Doe. My Chem theacher brought it up today, was really interesting.

The general consensus from the class was "Why do they keep creating new elements when they don't do anything?"
.... They shame me.

[Shins]

Why do they keep coming up with them, Hacky?

Not being an ass: genuinely curious.

[Hacky]

Becuase different elements can achieve different things. I mean, each and every metal has a different conductivity, doesn't it? Silver, Gold, Cobalt, etc. So imagine we discover a metal which has an extremely high melting point and massive conductivity. No worry of the metal overheating and melting no matter how much electricty we force through it.

Sure, it's a risk that comes at discovering a highly radioactive element as well, but every new element does different things and has different uses. If we can get them to be stable, they have great uses.

It's like saying, why do we keep searching for new energy resources? Yeah, we're going to continue to use mostly fossel fuels, but a new energy source could change the world.

[low tech]

I'm confused. I thought that 118 -- aka Ununoctium-- had already been discovered. If not why was it on the periodic table in the first place?

[Hacky]

The results were met with praise but also caution from other scientists in the field, particularly given the fraught history of element 118. Another California lab, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, announced that it discovered the element in 1999 but retracted the claim two years later after an investigation found that one of its researchers, Dr. Victor Ninov, had fabricated data. Dr. Ninov was later fired.

It probably comes from that. It took them two years to discredit a false creation of 118, some periodic tables probably still have it on them.

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-9/p15.html Story from 2002 about it being fake.

[Jager]

Unununim-Ununoctium are merely placeholders. Those names are latin for 1-1-1 ium 1-1-8 ium.

Then again, look at all the Actinates and those elements, and you can see they lost creativity.

And the most reactive element? Francium?
LOL

[Hacky]

We were losing creativity right around Einsteinium.

[Doku]

Becuase different elements can achieve different things. I mean, each and every metal has a different conductivity, doesn't it? Silver, Gold, Cobalt, etc. So imagine we discover a metal which has an extremely high melting point and massive conductivity. No worry of the metal overheating and melting no matter how much electricty we force through it.

Sure, it's a risk that comes at discovering a highly radioactive element as well, but every new element does different things and has different uses. If we can get them to be stable, they have great uses.

It's like saying, why do we keep searching for new energy resources? Yeah, we're going to continue to use mostly fossel fuels, but a new energy source could change the world.

You make a solid point but what is the use of an element that only lasts 1000th of a second.. can't really use it for anything before it collapses.. and in that time it could like kill you haha.. We don't have the technology yet to even be messing around with creating new elements imo.. we should make due with what we got till we're smart enough not to kill ourselves playing god!

XD yeah.. gotta love Californium!

[pnemeth]

Plus that wire thing is just silly since metal wires have a positive temperature coefficient... Not to mention the fact that it would be hardly cost effective to build wires out of an element that is so non-abundant on earth that it hasn't been discovered yet, or has to be created in a laboratory...

[Doku]

Plus that wire thing is just silly since metal wires have a positive temperature coefficient... Not to mention the fact that it would be hardly cost effective to build wires out of an element that is so non-abundant on earth that it hasn't been discovered yet, or has to be created in a laboratory...

Not necissarily.. there are tons of things that were lab created that are now mass produced.. plastic.. once we figure out wtf it is we're making if its THAT revolutionary we'll find a way to make tons of it..

But like I said.. we don't have the technology for anything of that nature..

[pnemeth]

Even in a lab, plastics have always been made with relatively simple chemical reactions (i.e. you don't need a particle accelerator to make a plastic, new elements on the other hand...)

I dunno, maybe in the distant future. But even in the future, metals will STILL have a positive temperature coefficient...

[We_Be_1337]

Not necissarily.. there are tons of things that were lab created that are now mass produced.. plastic.. once we figure out wtf it is we're making if its THAT revolutionary we'll find a way to make tons of it..

A good point, while we haven't been able to keep it in existence long enough to test it against something. If it in fact proves to be useful, then yes I'm sure we can find a way to mass produce. I do however, disagree about the "playing God" bit. Yes certain movies have made a big thing out of messing with new things, but that's the key; progress is made in leaps and bounds, not baby steps.

[Hacky]

Even in a lab, plastics have always been made with relatively simple chemical reactions (i.e. you don't need a particle accelerator to make a plastic, new elements on the other hand...)

I dunno, maybe in the distant future. But even in the future, metals will STILL have a positive temperature coefficient...

Maybe you can't see the symbolism inside what I said. I was giving an example, the element in question isn't even a metal. It is a nobel gas. The fact is creating new elements can achieve great new things. If we manage to create a new element that is key to curing, say, AIDs, or Cancer, or perhaps new powerful explosive that leaves no nuclear fallout*. Expensive to create or not, if something is extremely useful, then it doesn't matter.

New elements have no limits on their potential, anything can be achieved with a little hard work, and a lot of luck.

*I don't support new nuclear weapons, but hey, a great superpower that has the only nuclear weapon that can be launched without worry of fallout or Nuclear winter

[pnemeth]

Maybe you can't see the symbolism inside what I said. I was giving an example, the element in question isn't even a metal. It is a nobel gas. The fact is creating new elements can achieve great new things. If we manage to create a new element that is key to curing, say, AIDs, or Cancer, or perhaps new powerful explosive that leaves no nuclear fallout*. Expensive to create or not, if something is extremely useful, then it doesn't matter.

New elements have no limits on their potential, anything can be achieved with a little hard work, and a lot of luck.

*I don't support new nuclear weapons, but hey, a great superpower that has the only nuclear weapon that can be launched without worry of fallout or Nuclear winter
I was just pointing out that the example you gave wasn't the best of examples. I made no claims whatsoever as to whether a new element could be useful or not, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove to me...

[Hacky]

THat is how it came off to me. I merely made an example off the top of my head, I don't know a whole lot about physics or Chemistry, I do not study them in my free time, so I won't argue anything about the metal or anything like that.

[Evonus]

You make a solid point but what is the use of an element that only lasts 1000th of a second.. can't really use it for anything before it collapses.. and in that time it could like kill you haha.. We don't have the technology yet to even be messing around with creating new elements imo.. we should make due with what we got till we're smart enough not to kill ourselves playing god!

XD yeah.. gotta love Californium!

An element that only last for 1000th of a second is useless, just like compounds that decompose pretty readily under even close to standard conditions. But what they're trying to do is stumble upon an element that can last for an extended period of time and could be used for some purpose, as Hacky was trying to get across. But yeah element 118 is crap, on to 119!

[Jager]

An element that only last for 1000th of a second is useless, just like compounds that decompose pretty readily under even close to standard conditions. But what they're trying to do is stumble upon an element that can last for an extended period of time and could be used for some purpose, as Hacky was trying to get across. But yeah element 118 is crap, on to 119!
It didn't "only last for 1000th of a second". They could only detect that it was there for that short amount of time.

Also, look at Francium. It's half-life is 22 minutes. It's pretty damn useful.

[Doku]

What exactly is so useful about Francium anyway? I'm not being an ass I actually dont' know.. haha.

Also if we could only detect it being there for 1000th of a second then it doesnt matter if it lasts 1000th of a second or a 1001th of a second.. we can't do anything with something that is only there for such a short amount of time.

[Kinetix]

It didn't "only last for 1000th of a second". They could only detect that it was there for that short amount of time.

Also, look at Francium. It's half-life is 22 minutes. It's pretty damn useful.

Remember jager, evonus talks out of his ass naturally. He never knows what he is talking about.

[Hacky]

Everybody seems to be acting like fools with this 1000th of a second thing. It was only there for 1000th of a second on the FIRST TRIAL. Doesn't mean that'll be how long every single time they create it...

[We_Be_1337]

Hmm, I've heard of this new element a long time ago (I think when it was initially discovered) but some things I've learned in here would be:

...the element in question isn't even a metal. It is a nobel gas.

and


Everybody seems to be acting like fools with this 1000th of a second thing. It was only there for 1000th of a second on the FIRST TRIAL. Doesn't mean that'll be how long every single time they create it...

Kudo's to Hacky for keeping the public informed. On another note, What do you suppose we could do with this new element, once it's stablized?:think:

[Hacky]

I'm unsure as to what it could do, but it joins the ranks with Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon, and Radon.

Helium is used along with oxygen by divers. Neon is used in neon sign electrical discharge tubes. Argon, krypton and xenon, are used in incandescent lamps. Radon a radioactive noble gas is used in the treatment of malignant growths. (Source (http://www.ucc.ie/academic/chem/dolchem/html/dict/000n1.html))

That's quite a range of uses if it can be stablized. Radon is also deadly, so not only good can be brought from it.

http://www.chem.wisc.edu/areas/reich/handouts/periodic-table.GIF

You can see that 118 is on there, but it's labeled as Uuo which indicates it as a place holder, as we discussed it was "discovered" in 1999 but later that discovery was disproved. I think some periodic tables still list it as a real element (It appears to be on that one, but it also lists it as a metal, when clearly it's a part of the nobel gases)

Also http://www.physorg.com/news80226997.html

It appears that there is an "island of stability" as far as number of protons and neutrons (Theorized and unproven, but there's a graph on there to support it). So if they can calculate the correct number of neutrons to counter the 118 protons, then we'll have a stable element.

In addition, some people believe that created elements are merely elements undiscovered/not on earth. They could potentially exist in nature, but it is impossible for us to recognize the chemical makeup of a planet billions of lightyears away.

[Evonus]

It didn't "only last for 1000th of a second". They could only detect that it was there for that short amount of time.

Also, look at Francium. It's half-life is 22 minutes. It's pretty damn useful.

Well yes, but 22 minutes is still a long enough period for humans to work with it. A few seconds isn't, and since it was only there for thousandths of a second. Also, what is Francium used for?


Everybody seems to be acting like fools with this 1000th of a second thing. It was only there for 1000th of a second on the FIRST TRIAL. Doesn't mean that'll be how long every single time they create it...

That's true, things like nuetrons and charge as well as surrounding evironment affect it; however, I can't imagine something like that having much of a half life, so chances are it will become one of the recorded but not really used elements.



You can see that 118 is on there, but it's labeled as Uuo which indicates it as a place holder, as we discussed it was "discovered" in 1999 but later that discovery was disproved. I think some periodic tables still list it as a real element (It appears to be on that one, but it also lists it as a metal, when clearly it's a part of the nobel gases)

Actually, you'd be surprised. Because it would have an f-orbital it's actually more likely that it would behave more like a lathanide or an actinide than a noble gas. That's why the step that separates metals from nonmetals creeps to the right and eventually hits the right side of the table, signifying that all elements below it will behave as metals and not gasses. Besides the f-orbital weight also has a lot to do with it, although not as much as the orbitals themselves.


It appears that there is an "island of stability" as far as number of protons and neutrons (Theorized and unproven, but there's a graph on there to support it). So if they can calculate the correct number of neutrons to counter the 118 protons, then we'll have a stable element. If it can ever be stabalized in within earth's atmosphere.


In addition, some people believe that created elements are merely elements undiscovered/not on earth. They could potentially exist in nature, but it is impossible for us to recognize the chemical makeup of a planet billions of lightyears away.

Theoretically, almost anything can exist in nature. Such as, it's actually favorable to gain 1 electron no matter what element it is. So making a negative metal is actually favorable, it just doesn't happen because it is more favorable for a gas to absorb the electron. The opposite can be said for gasses. It is unfavorable for any element to take on more than 1 extra electron, thus oxygen's charge in water (-2) would normally be unfavorable, but it's more unfavorable for Hydrogen to have 1 in it's valence shell than for oxygen to have two extra. Basically, what I'm getting at is pretty much everything can form in outer space. I believe they've even detected a hydrogen atom with the first quantum number (n) being like 298, and on earth nothing gets higher than 7.

[Hacky]

Actually, you'd be surprised. Because it would have an f-orbital it's actually more likely that it would behave more like a lathanide or an actinide than a noble gas. That's why the step that separates metals from nonmetals creeps to the right and eventually hits the right side of the table, signifying that all elements below it will behave as metals and not gasses. Besides the f-orbital weight also has a lot to do with it, although not as much as the orbitals themselves.
Yes, but the step that seperates them would move under At, and between Uus (117) and Uuo (118) as that is the pattern it follows. Being as we haven't stablized it, it still has a high possibilty of being a nobel gas.


If it can ever be stabalized in within earth's atmosphere.
As I said, that is entirely possible if the "island of stability" proves true, then all we need to do is find the proper number of neutrons to counter the 118 protons, and we'll have a decently stable element. At least, stable enough to experiment on and potentially use.




Theoretically, almost anything can exist in nature. Such as, it's actually favorable to gain 1 electron no matter what element it is. So making a negative metal is actually favorable, it just doesn't happen because it is more favorable for a gas to absorb the electron. The opposite can be said for gasses. It is unfavorable for any element to take on more than 1 extra electron, thus oxygen's charge in water (-2) would normally be unfavorable, but it's more unfavorable for Hydrogen to have 1 in it's valence shell than for oxygen to have two extra. Basically, what I'm getting at is pretty much everything can form in outer space. I believe they've even detected a hydrogen atom with the first quantum number (n) being like 298, and on earth nothing gets higher than 7.

Exactly why NASA is still an important program.