what to call the new element?

Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by Robin Hood, Jun 12, 2009.

  1. Robin Hood Science filmmaker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    How about Newelementium, or Obamaium perehaps notanotherelementium.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    The element 112, discovered at the GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung (Centre for Heavy Ion Research) in Darmstadt, has been officially recognized as a new element by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). IUPAC confirmed the recognition of element 112 in an official letter to the head of the discovering team, Professor Sigurd Hofmann.

    Why not call it Helmholtzzentrumfürschwerionenforschungium, after the place where it was discovered.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I thought elements beyond 112 have already been detected?

    I specifically remember someone saying that 115 had been created, and naturally Bob Lazar's story of element 115 and Area 51 were brought, and 115's halflife was so short and so unstable that it just reinforced the notion that Lazar's story was BS. And then someone stated that the isotope was not the same!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Is this true? About 115 being created already?



    The bizarre Robert Lazar saga...
    http://www.boblazar.com/closed/index.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  8. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Maybe I'm confusing discovery with actually having an official name rather than a generic name?!?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,631
    Betheium. Or, since it was made by smashing zinc and lead together, there is always "Linc"
     
  10. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    What's the criteria for which elements are chosen to bombard? Just pick two handsome ones and hope for the best?
     
  11. Robin Hood Science filmmaker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    74
    Yes I think they first detected 112 a while back, this is just official recognition and the next step required to give it a proper name.

    It is a necessary process because of tales of people claiming to have created these synthetic elements, and then later finding they did not.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    "element 112"
    "kryptonite"
    or we can go the sub atomic route:
    "sideways"
    "over-under"
     
  13. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Funny, I thought of Heisenberg myself.

    But if you're looking for kooky Germans to use, how about Ottoskorzenium ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That would only work if it seemed to offer great promise/potential, then turned out to be the equivalent of the same old fecal matter we've been stepping in for centuries...
    :mufc:
     
  14. River Ape Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,099
    Never mind the famous scientists . . .
    Minnochium, after the heaviest person in the world.

    Or there's twentycentium
    (which is four times nickel at 28).
     
  15. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,631
    How about "Whatchumacallitium" or, "The Element That Shall Not Be Named"?
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No I am sure you want quite stable elements. Generally speaking I think you would want both to even atomic number elements that add to 112 rather than two odd atomic number element that add to 112. This is becuase there is consideralbe evidence to think that even within the nucleus there is some tendency for alpha paricles to cluster or be bound units. (An alpha is two protons and two neutrons.) For example zink, A =30, their projectile could be considered to be in some crude sense 15 alphas (atomic mass 60 and the atomic mass of zink from my dicionary is 65.38 so probably there are two main isotopes 66 and 64 or some zink atoms have 15 alphas plus 4 more neutrons and other have 6 more neutrons.* Stability of both is important as you want to fuse the nuclei, not smash them into smaller ones.

    Obviously you you want the target to be more massive than the projectile which you must accelerate and you need lots more target than projectiles so you want the target to be cheap (relative un important as it is a minor cost) but also dense. You are going to use ionixed projectiles so the easy with which you can ionize them is also a factor.


    When you put all these (and probably some other) considerations together what you throw at what to produce 112 does not have a lot of choices.

    Zink on lead was the winner anyway.

    -----
    * I am too lazy to search and find what are the actual isotopes - I alway like to reason out what I can instead, but may be wrong on this.

    ------------
    ------------
    Now to the name question. It might be a good idea to tell Israel that if they do not stop building settlements in the 1967 war occupied land, we Germans are going to call 112 "Hitlerium."
     

Share This Page