Skip to comments.
Modern alchemists make two new elements
Nature Magazine ^
| 03 February 2004
| MARK PEPLOW
Posted on 02/03/2004 6:57:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
Footnote in original article. Bold font added by your humble poster.
To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
To: PatrickHenry
Cool. I'm still waiting to see what the atomic numbers for Unobtainium will be.
3
posted on
02/03/2004 6:59:32 AM PST
by
Professional Engineer
(Spirit/Opportunity~0.002acres of sovereign US territory~All Your Mars Are Belong To US)
To: PatrickHenry
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. Which is still probably not very long at all by everyday commonplace expectations. ((Amateur Scientific American reader guesswork alert!!)) The nuclear strong force simply stops being strong above a certain distance. Big nuclei are unstable because they are too big for the effective strong force radius. The stability that comes from jostling into a certain shape (and keeping the mutually-repelling protons apart) would itself be subject to jostling out of shape.
4
posted on
02/03/2004 7:05:44 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
To: Professional Engineer
I'd dearly love to see them name one of these elements, "Eludium".
5
posted on
02/03/2004 7:09:41 AM PST
by
Aracelis
To: PatrickHenry
However, the US Department of Energy recently promised $850 million towards a new rare isotope accelerator. Is this really an appropriate expenditure of nearly $1 billion in tax payer dollars?
How about private enterprise, looking for an end product use for this bucks up the money.
6
posted on
02/03/2004 7:10:47 AM PST
by
Phantom Lord
(Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
To: PatrickHenry
Interesting. Bump.
7
posted on
02/03/2004 7:10:49 AM PST
by
DoctorMichael
(Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
To: Piltdown_Woman
ROFLOL
8
posted on
02/03/2004 7:15:19 AM PST
by
Professional Engineer
(Spirit/Opportunity~0.002acres of sovereign US territory~All Your Mars Are Belong To US)
To: VadeRetro
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's a p*ss-poor explanation of what's going on. The islands of stability actually occur where "shells" (distinct energy levels) are filled. As far as I can tell, this has squat to do with "contact between the protons"---a concept that I don't think has much meaning in the quantum mechanical world anyway.
To: Winston Smith Jr.
The islands of stability actually occur where "shells" (distinct energy levels) are filled. Don't think that's it here. We're just trying to form a nucleus, not populate whatever the electron orbitals would be.
To: VadeRetro
I meant (of course) nucleon orbitals.
To: Phantom Lord
Is this really an appropriate expenditure of nearly $1 billion in tax payer dollars?How about private enterprise, looking for an end product use for this bucks up the money.
Yes, it is.
This is basic research needed to underpin the future of all American Science.
Any profitable end products are literally generations away.
No public company can invest in research that won't produce a profit for 30 or 40 years. It would not be prudent stewardship of corporate assets and would probably result in a stockholders suit.
So9
To: Winston Smith Jr.
The islands of stability actually occur where "shells" (distinct energy levels) are filled. As far as I can tell, this has squat to do with "contact between the protons"---a concept that I don't think has much meaning in the quantum mechanical world anywayNuclear shell model...not electron valence properties. A concept which does indeed involve protons and quantum mechanics.
13
posted on
02/03/2004 7:23:13 AM PST
by
Aracelis
To: Professional Engineer
Unobtainium is found as a trace element in Leaverite. Leaverite was found at the bottom of a 15,000 foot exploration bore conducted by Amoco Corporation in eastern Iowa in 1975.
To: Winston Smith Jr.
I meant (of course) nucleon orbitals. Over my pay grade!
To: Servant of the 9
This is basic research needed to underpin the future of all American Science.Pretty bold statement without a shred of evidence to support it.
16
posted on
02/03/2004 7:30:25 AM PST
by
from occupied ga
(Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
To: Servant of the 9
"Basic research"?
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.
17
posted on
02/03/2004 7:33:07 AM PST
by
anobjectivist
(The natural rights of people are more basic than those currently considered)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
I'm intrigued, is this a joke or if for real, what is Leaverite?
18
posted on
02/03/2004 7:34:19 AM PST
by
job
(Dinsdale?Dinsdale?)
To: Eric in the Ozarks
Unobtainium is also the element that a charactor in the movie "CORE" built the subterranian vehicle used to go to the core of the earth.
19
posted on
02/03/2004 7:37:29 AM PST
by
Lokibob
(All typos and spelling errors are mine and copyrighted!!!!)
To: job
Leaverite has two forms. The surface form is that pretty rock that you should leaveritethere. The second form is found deep in the Earth's crust. You also leaveritethere because you have no practical way to bring it to the surface.
20
posted on
02/03/2004 7:42:54 AM PST
by
Professional Engineer
(Spirit/Opportunity~0.002acres of sovereign US territory~All Your Mars Are Belong To US)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson