Posted on 02/03/2004 6:57:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Heavy elements approach fabled ‘island of stability’.
Tantalising evidence of two new chemical elements has been produced by a team of Russian and American scientists. Their observations indicate that we may be getting close to the fabled ‘island of stability’ in the periodic table, where heavy elements should be more stable than their neighbours. If confirmed, the discovery will bring the tally of known elements to 116.
“It’s one of the most fundamental questions — how many elements are there?” says Paddy Regan, a nuclear physicist at the University of Surrey. “There must be an upper limit, and this work suggests that we should be able to find that within the next decade.”
Uranium, the heaviest element found in nature, has an atomic number of 92, meaning it has 92 protons in its nucleus. Atoms bigger than this are more likely to break apart spontaneously in radioactive decay, because the strong nuclear force that holds protons and neutrons together gets weaker as more particles jostle for space at the core of the atom. Also, protons have a positive charge and the more there are the greater the strain on the nucleus due to the repulsion between them. Eventually the nucleus shatters, spraying out smaller, more stable atoms.
But physicists have predicted ‘islands of stability’ at atomic numbers 114, 120 and/or 126, where the protons and neutrons might be able to jostle themselves into a shape that minimises contact between the protons. That would allow the nucleus to hang together for much longer than its neighbours in the periodic table. Creating such elements may give scientists access to unusual and exciting chemistry.
Smashing
The only way to make these heavy elements is to smash smaller atoms together at huge energies. The team of scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, Russia, fired a beam of heavy calcium atoms at a target made from americium, the radioactive metal found inside smoke detectors.
The result of the collision was just four atoms of element 115, which lived for about 90 milliseconds before decaying into a second new element, 1131. Interestingly, the atoms of 113 survived for up to 1.2 seconds, “long enough to allow you to do some interesting chemistry”, according to Francis Livens, a nuclear chemist at the University of Manchester.
The new elements have provisionally been named ununtrium (113) and ununpentium (115). They will be given proper names if and when the discovery is confirmed.
The Dubna group has an extensive track record in this kind of alchemy. ‘Dubnium’ was named to commemorate the group's creation of element 105, and it has also recorded evidence for elements 114 and 116.
Nevertheless, Regan remains cautious. “For this to be real, it has to be reproducible, so I’m keeping an open mind on this,” he says. “Basically, if you want proof, you need a smoking gun. In this case, you need to see the alpha particles and X-rays that come from radioactive decay — and you have to see them at precisely the right energy that is caused by that particular decay.”
Retraction and accusation
Many others in the field are equally tentative. Embarrassment over the discovery of element 118, announced with great fanfare and then retracted amid accusations of scientific fraud, has left the nuclear physics community feeling bruised.
“We haven’t so much got egg on our face over 118, more like a full omelette,” says Regan.
He adds that many in the field think there is an inherent problem with the technique used in these experiments. Since the americium target used is itself radioactive, it will always contain traces of other decay products that interfere with the reaction.
However, the US Department of Energy recently promised $850 million towards a new rare isotope accelerator. This will allow physicists to use as the target a beam of radioactive americium atoms that is absolutely pure, unlike the stationary target used in this latest research.
Leaverite is any unidentified mineral which, when you pick it up and ask a veteran collector whether you should keep it, the reply is, "No, leaverite there."
I fail to see anything basic about this, other than the scientific community always thinking that their wants are superior to everyone else's right to their own money.
You can't see anything basic and important in a better understanding of the Periodic Table and how elements are put together and interact?
It bears on Fission, Fusion, Semiconductors and nanotechnology, just for a start. The research done in the 50s and 60s is just now becoming commercially important.
Of course, we can forget all this brainstorming boodogles, and just let the Japanese and Chinnese do it.
Then we won't have to worry about technical job flight overseas, cause all the new jobs will just start there.
So9
I'm talking about nuclear shells, not electron shells.
| I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | |||||||||||
| 1 | H1 | He2 | ||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Li3 | Be4 | B5 | C6 | N7 | O8 | F9 | Ne10 | ||||||||||
| 3 | Na11 | Mg12 | Al13 | Si14 | P15 | S16 | Cl17 | Ar18 | ||||||||||
| 4 | K19 | Ca20 | Sc21 | Ti22 | V23 | Cr24 | Mn25 | Fe26 | Co27 | Ni28 | Cu29 | Zn30 | Ga31 | Ge32 | As33 | Se34 | Br35 | Kr36 |
| 5 | Rb37 | Sr38 | Y39 | Zr40 | Nb41 | Mo42 | Tc43 | Ru44 | Rh45 | Pd46 | Ag47 | Cd48 | In49 | Sn50 | Sb51 | Te52 | I53 | Xe54 |
| 6 | Cs55 | Ba56 | La57 | Hf72 | Ta73 | W74 | Re75 | Os76 | Ir77 | Pt78 | Au79 | Hg80 | Tl81 | Pb82 | Bi83 | Po84 | At85 | Rn86 |
| 7 | Fr87 | Ra88 | Ac89 | Rf 104 |
Db 105 |
Sg 106 |
Bh 107 |
Hs 108 |
Mt 109 |
Ds 110 |
Uuu 111 |
Uub 112 |
Uut 113 |
Uuq 114 |
UUp 115 |
Uuh 116 |
Uus 117 |
Uuo 118 |
| Ce58 | Pr59 | Nd60 | Pm61 | Sm62 | Eu63 | Gd64 | Tb65 | Dy66 | Ho67 | Er68 | Tm69 | Yb70 | Lu71 | ||||||
| Th90 | Pa91 | U92 | Np93 | Pu94 | Am95 | Cm96 | Bk97 | Cf98 | Es99 | Fm100 | Md101 | No102 | Lr103 |
This research tells us squat about chemical interactions.
It bears on Fission, Fusion, Semiconductors and nanotechnology, just for a start.
Perhaps, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Right now our economy is wallowing in more money than is good for us.
That is why the Prime Rate is 1%.
When the Prime gets above 10%, then there is cause to worry about starving the economy by government competition for available funds.
So9
Yeah, just like it is now, with people unwilling to make investments, because the possible rate of return is too low to make it worth the risk.
So9
As I recall you (so9) were also cheerleading the spending initiative for Bush's space exploration. (Correct me if I have you confused with someone else)
I'm curious. Is there any limit where you will say, "This is just wealth transfer from the harderst working taxpayers to PhDs and engineers?" Is there any sort of government largess to scientists and engineers that you don't approve of?
I object to anything that is likely to result in profitable spinoffs with a decade.
Progress depends on research and govt. is the only one who can supply the long term basic research. It is too expensive and the rewards too far off for private enterprise to do it.
Right now we have 3 private companies working on commercial orbital flight. There is no way private enterprise could have pioneered in space flight. If the govt. hadn't led the way in the 60s with Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Shuttle, there would be no nascent space industry.
This is an especially good time for it.
The 30s demonstrated that interest rates too low to recompense risk can vapor lock an economy just as effectively as too high interest rates.
We need more govt. spending right now, enough to drive the prime rate up to at least 4%.
I certainly don't want to see it spent on social programs.
I favor basic research and updating infrastructure like bridges, airports and highways.
So9
Yes. Unobtainium will have a number that's even higher than Improbabilium! ;^)
Well let's chalk up one point of agreement then before I go on.
I object to anything that is likely to result in profitable spinoffs with a decade.
How about never useful? Lots of this stuff is only going to procreate PhDs in nuclear physics who will have no place to go except academia and publish papers with research paid for at the taxpayers expense, who will then train a whole new generation of larval graduate students and start the same cycle over again.
The 30s demonstrated that interest rates too low to recompense risk can vapor lock an economy just as effectively as too high interest rates.
A far greater danger is the government sapping too much of the economy for political ends which have no yield except for votes and perks to the political class.. Bush's budget would make a Democrat proud., but that's getting off topic
We need more govt. spending right now, enough to drive the prime rate up to at least 4%.
You really mean this? You remember Limbaugh's comment about taxing ourselves into prosperity? This is exactly what you're proposing, because government spending comes from government money. The ONLY source for government money is taxes both now and on future generations, since it appears that the government is unwilling to sell assets to even reduce a tiny part of its expenses. So what you're proposing is taxing ourselves into prosperity. It just doesn't work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.