It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IUPAC announces the verification of the discoveries of four new chemical elements

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   
IUPAC announces the verification of the discoveries of four new chemical elements: The 7th period of the periodic table of elements is complete.


The fourth IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party (JWP) on the priority of claims to the discovery of new elements has reviewed the relevant literature for elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 and has determined that the claims for discovery of these elements have been fulfilled, in accordance with the criteria for the discovery of elements of the IUPAP/IUPAC Transfermium Working Group (TWG) 1991 discovery criteria. These elements complete the 7th row of the periodic table of the elements, and the discoverers from Japan, Russia and the USA will now be invited to suggest permanent names and symbols.


This is some pretty cool news. They just confirmed and added four new elements to the Periodic Table of Elements completing the seventh row of the table. This is all brand new too. They haven't even gotten names for the elements yet.


Element 113 (temporary working name and symbol: ununtrium, Uut)

...

Elements 115, 117, and 118 (temporary working names and symbols: ununpentium, Uup; ununseptium, Uus; and ununoctium, Uuo)


I'm not super good at Latin, but I assume those names translate to something like 1 1 3, 1 1 5, 1 1 7, and 1 1 8.
edit on 4-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Someone should drop the word "Chemical" from the title. Its the table of elements, not table of chemical elements.

Chemical usually refers to compounds.

Are these more momentary elements, here and gone in an instant?

Whoopee…



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Just because the element's period of existence is insignificant to you doesn't mean it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Interesting. I love how element 113 was discovered in 2012, but it took four years to sift through and verify the data.

You may find this link interesting. I'm a super fan of Walter Russel and get excited when science "discovers" (demonstrably proves the existence), of elements that were already postulated to exist. The idea was that a "table" can't stand on two legs, therefore there must be two more in existence that we just don't have the ability to produce. Slowly, but surely, we make them appear.

S+F



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

This news makes me long for the days of learning about 'p' orbitals, ions, polyatomic ions, anions, cations, and ......how to safely use a bunsen burner. Unsafe means evacuation and expulsion!

Anyway, interesting info. Will look out for updates on this story.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm not super good at Latin, but I assume those names translate to something like 1 1 3, 1 1 5, 1 1 7, and 1 1 8.


You are correct.

I am curious if we can now get further up the chart to some of the islands of stability that are predicted.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
Interesting. I love how element 113 was discovered in 2012, but it took four years to sift through and verify the data.

You may find this link interesting. I'm a super fan of Walter Russel and get excited when science "discovers" (demonstrably proves the existence), of elements that were already postulated to exist. The idea was that a "table" can't stand on two legs, therefore there must be two more in existence that we just don't have the ability to produce. Slowly, but surely, we make them appear.

S+F


Great resource - thanks for sharing that as well. Walter Russel! You don't hear his name nearly as often as you should.

OP Great thread, S & F - looking forward to hearing what other developments happen with these



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

edit on 4-1-2016 by FamCore because: dbl post



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

Just because the element's period of existence is insignificant to you doesn't mean it is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Smashing stuff together and counting the sparks. They can do that forever, the subatomic realm is like the Celestial one. Open ended, boundless, infinite.

The transuranic elements are all radioactive, most are man made. They are part of whats wrong with the world, imo. Nuclear power, Nuclear weapons and nuclear waste.


In chemistry, transuranium elements (also known as transuranic elements) are the chemical elements with atomic numbers greater than 92 (the atomic number of uranium). None of these elements are stable; they decay radioactively into other elements.

edit on 4-1-2016 by intrptr because: correction



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

Well that is just proof positive that the peer review process is not only working as intended but isn't as corrupt as many suggest. Science takes time to be verified.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, I know these things already, but you aren't getting my point. You don't see the significance of their existence or length of existence, but that doesn't mean that we aren't learning things about the universe from studying their existence. Basically your argument is, "I don't like this facet of science so it's not worth doing."



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm not super good at Latin, but I assume those names translate to something like 1 1 3, 1 1 5, 1 1 7, and 1 1 8.


You are correct.


Cool. Thanks for that info.


I am curious if we can now get further up the chart to some of the islands of stability that are predicted.


Sorry. Chemistry wasn't exactly my strong suit in high school. I was more a Physics person. Could you explain what you mean here?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cool news.. The next one 119 would be called ununnonium for the mega number Nonillion if it follows the preceding pattern. , octillion, septillion, etc..

There's a theory that some of these elements exist naturally in other solar systems with larger stars, and that they could be stable in the right isotopic ratio.
edit on 4-1-2016 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


In nuclear physics, the island of stability is the prediction that a set of heavy isotopes with a near magic number of protons and neutrons will temporarily reverse the trend of decreasing stability in elements heavier than uranium. Although predictions of the exact location differ somewhat, Klaus Blaum expects the island of stability to occur in the region near the isotope 300Ubn.[1] Estimates about the amount of stability on the island are usually around a half-life of minutes or days, with "some optimists" expecting half-lives of millions of years.[2]

Although the theory has existed since the 1960s, the existence of such superheavy, relatively stable isotopes has not been demonstrated. Like the rest of the superheavy elements, the isotopes on the island of stability have never been found in nature, and so must be created in an artificial nuclear reaction to be studied. However, scientists have not found a way to carry out such a reaction. Source



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is good to see scientific advancements that show the awesome wonder of the universe and discovering new parameters to it's make up.

I'm glad that science is ever-evolving - constantly seeking to define that which is yet unknown.




edit on 4-1-2016 by Sublimecraft because: grammar



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

See, I feel elements should be nature made, not man made. But who cares about my feelings, right?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: intrptr

See, I feel elements should be nature made, not man made. But who cares about my feelings, right?

I care.

Man is unstable, give him a chemistry set and he'll make the world unstable, too.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Cool. Thanks for the info. That sounds like an interesting theory and now you got me the wondering the same.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Yep. Nothing is out of bounds.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

IMO, science is not absolute; it expands, it questions, and is ever revealing truths waiting to be discovered.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join