The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Chemistry
  4. periodic table
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

periodic table

  • 7 Replies
  • 5848 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ukmicky (OP)

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3019
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
periodic table
« on: 25/08/2005 20:25:16 »
How much is missing from the periodic table,How high can it go, is there a limit.

Are superheavy elements like ununquadium unbinilium and unbihexium real and what properties could these or other new elements have.
« Last Edit: 25/08/2005 20:27:37 by ukmicky »
Logged
 



Offline David Sparkman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 234
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: periodic table
« Reply #1 on: 25/08/2005 23:35:51 »
All of the super heavy elements discovered in the last 50-60 years have extrememly short half lives (read highly radioactive), and are very hard to discribe as we can't make much of it, much less experiment with them as they exist for only a fraction of a second.

Is there a stable higher order element? Probabiliy not, but if it were, it would be very expensive, and have mediorce properties.

That the higer order atoms are so highly unstable may be due to the size of the nucelous exceding size of the field of the force that holds the center of the atom together.

David
Logged
David
 

Offline gerard

  • First timers
  • *
  • 6
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: periodic table
« Reply #2 on: 26/08/2005 00:34:23 »
its theorised thought that there is a plateau of stability somewhere around the 250 mark i think.
Logged
 
 

Offline Simmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 229
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: periodic table
« Reply #3 on: 26/08/2005 22:55:27 »
I remember reading the same thing but it begs the question, if these elements are stable why haven't we found some?
Logged
 
 

Offline rosy

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1015
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: periodic table
« Reply #4 on: 27/08/2005 00:08:26 »
Well, I know nothing at all here so I'm guessing but if these Z=250 type elements are to be formed it would have to be by fusion of smaller nuclei which would probably themselves be unstable... so it's possible I guess that they just don't form in lab conditions/elsewhere in detectable amounts because there has to be a collision between two very short-lived species for them to be formed at all. Also, "stable" may mean "more stable than the high-Z unstable stuff we've already made" rather than stable in the sense of C-12.
Logged
 



Offline Simmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 229
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: periodic table
« Reply #5 on: 28/08/2005 07:38:02 »
Makes sense, or maybe it's just that we don't recognise the h-orbital transitions in stellar spectra :-)
Logged
 
 

Offline Ylide

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 905
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • http://clem.mscd.edu/~mogavero
Re: periodic table
« Reply #6 on: 29/08/2005 01:13:38 »
In general, you can think of it as a tendency for larger elements to have the repulsive force of the protons in the nucleus start to become stronger than the attractive nuclear force that holds them together.  Islands of stability come from the ratio of neutrons to protons (i.e. added nuclear force from neutrons) being favorable towards nuclear force holding the nucleus together.  Once you reach a certain nucleus size, the nuclear force becomes less and less able to overcome the repulsive force of the protons.  I'm told the actual structure, that is relative positions of neutrons to protons, is a factor but I couldn't begin to explain how.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
Logged
This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People
 

Offline Simmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 229
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: periodic table
« Reply #7 on: 29/08/2005 10:11:43 »
Nuclear structure being the arrangement of neutrons and protons that minimises repulsive forces, I take it?  I suppose that's where the islands of stabiity idea comes from - I wonder if technetium is an island of instability for the same reason?
Logged
 
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

What does the life table for kaplan meier with staggered entry look like ?

Started by cherry2000Board General Science

Replies: 1
Views: 4027
Last post 16/09/2010 18:13:53
by Joe L. Ogan
What are some methods of separating sodium and chlorine from table salt?

Started by bwag1002Board Chemistry

Replies: 2
Views: 3205
Last post 29/07/2017 13:57:49
by chiralSPO
Do salts other than table salt taste salty ?

Started by nilmotBoard Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 5
Views: 6484
Last post 07/02/2004 07:12:52
by pencilhead
How does table salt affect a voltaic pile?

Started by sorin cezarBoard Chemistry

Replies: 20
Views: 12812
Last post 03/12/2013 19:41:33
by Bored chemist
Is table salt commercially processed with bleach?

Started by A.CarterBoard Chemistry

Replies: 6
Views: 10858
Last post 25/06/2016 14:06:50
by Bored chemist
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.1 seconds with 55 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.