Posted on 06/09/2016 2:40:41 AM PDT by AdmSmith
Nihonium, named after Japan (Nippon is a Japanese word for Japan), with an atomic number of 113. Its symbol is Nh.
Moscovium (Mc), element 115, named after the Russian capital city.
Tennessine (Ts), 117, named after — you guessed it — the state of Tennessee. ("Tennessine is in recognition of the contribution of the Tennessee region, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, to superheavy element research," the IUPAC states.)
And finally, 118 is oganesson (Og), which bears the name of Russian physicist Yuri Oganessian, who led several elemental discoveries. Nature reports this is only the second time an element has been named for a living scientist.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
Obamaium is a corrosive, poisonous nuisance element and has no useful purpose other than to be willingly ingested by people who it affects like PCP while it rots their brains, makes them angry, and saps their spirits.
:: Perhaps they will find an element with a higher atomic number that IS stable, and has a useful property ::
Which will be acceptable to the consensus of scientists?
Nahhh..everything from here-on-out is “designer chemistry” driven by physicists who think they can drive the world of chemistry.
Sorry, me and my Chemistry degree find that, although mathematically possible to infinitely derive short-life isotopes/elements, we (science) have determined every ^useful^ element ending at Americium. Everything else is just...well...designer chemistry.
Chemistry is and should be...useful.
i thought 115 was called Ununpentium...
Or “Trayvonium” for the BLM folks.
"Death wish on acid"
Everybody before whose said we’ve learned all there is has been wrong. It’s ALL useful, if you don’t have a closed and therefore useless mind. We just don’t know what’s hanging out further up the chart, could be the next super metal, could be a great energy source, but there’s only one way to find out, and that’s to completely ignore any whiner that thinks we shouldn’t be exploring.
Including the most elusive elemental "P" used in our spelling.........
Reardon developed the “next super-metal”.
Where is it?
Wasn’t as super as hoped. That’s how experimentation works, that’s how knowledge grows, sometimes it doesn’t work out, but that not working out adds to the pile of knowledge that eventually DOES work out.
:: i thought 115 was called Ununpentium ::
I believe the name is “un-pretentious-ium”....but I could be wrong.
The element from Kentucky is called jimbeamium.
...which they named after a small town in Idaho...
Yeah, but here’s the thing, everything of higher number than Americium is unstable and short-lived [even Americium is suspect].
What makes us (science) think that ever-higher e-numbers will be stable for more than a few microseconds? What does it contribute to the physio-chemical world other than “GEE, LOOK WHAT I DID!” ?
A clever joker could have created a hoax that Ununpentius was a great scientist and convinced them to keep the name.
They didn't go for my pick "Unobtanium," but maybe Hollywood has that one copyrighted.
:: The element from Kentucky is called jimbeamium ::
Y’all done earned yourself a bourbon ping!
Bourbonium?
Wildturkeyum?
You forgot two important words in that first sentence:
so far.
We don’t know if the next one up is stable until we make it. What makes science think that even higher numbered could be stable is that they understand that until we make it there’s a world of possibilities. It contributes by putting us one step further along. There’s all kinds of theoretical things we can show how they’d work mathematically if only some sort of unobtanium with these properties exist, and they might not be unobtainable, they could be the next one in the chain.
The real question is why shouldn’t we try? And the answer is: no reason. Trying will always add more knowledge than not trying.
I’m thinking “woodford-ium” or even “pogue-ium” as appropriate.
Actually, I’m warming up to your “bourbonium” {pronounced bur-bah-NEE-um)
I’m in agreement with you. I just find that attempting to obtain short-life isotopes, using the government dole, quite hard to swallow.
But, in viewing the effort, it can’t really be done any other way. Science is provided for by taxes. We will never see a Tesla or Edison anymore without the support of government.
:-)
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.