Elements 113 & 115: Uses & Benefits

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mackay1011
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the newly discovered super heavy elements 113 and 115, exploring their potential uses, benefits, and the implications of their properties in the context of nuclear physics and chemistry. Participants express curiosity about the practical applications of these elements, their stability, and the challenges associated with studying them.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the search for super heavy elements is primarily aimed at understanding nuclear structures and binding potentials rather than immediate practical applications.
  • Others express interest in the decay modes of these elements and their potential to lead to interesting isotopes for chemical use, although they acknowledge the current impracticality due to short half-lives.
  • A participant questions the feasibility of stabilizing these elements, noting that any stabilization might alter their fundamental properties and question their identity as the same element.
  • Concerns are raised about the extremely short lifetimes of these elements, making experimental study challenging, and participants discuss methods of studying decay products instead of the elements themselves.
  • Some participants highlight the high costs and limited applications of heavy elements due to their radiotoxicity and short half-lives, suggesting that better energy storage methods exist.
  • A high school student inquires about the costs associated with the discovery of these elements, indicating an interest in the financial aspects of scientific research.
  • Speculation arises about the stability of element 117 and its potential for practical use, though it remains unverified.
  • Humorous suggestions for naming future elements are shared, reflecting a lighter aspect of the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the current understanding of elements 113 and 115 is limited by their short lifetimes and that practical applications are not yet feasible. However, there are competing views regarding the significance of their study, with some emphasizing fundamental research over practical use.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the uncertainty surrounding the stabilization of super heavy elements and the dependence on experimental conditions for their study. The discussion also reflects varying levels of understanding among participants regarding the technical aspects of nuclear physics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and researchers in nuclear physics, chemistry, and materials science, as well as those curious about the implications of super heavy elements in scientific research.

Mackay1011
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Physics news on Phys.org
Others might feel differently, but my opinion is that the search for super heavy elements is not about chemistry or technology, at least not now, it is about understanding the nuclei structures, binding potentials, ... test the models somehow.
 
I am with Humanino on this. While these super heavy elements can have interesting decay modes that can lead to interesting isotopes for use in chemistry, from a fundamental viewpoint, I find interest in their ability to test our understanding of structure and physics far from stability.
 
I don't actually understand anything you to have said hehe, i mean in the periodic table, every element or whatever you call them has a use, so what COULD 113 & 115 be used for? a ruff guesses are more then welcome, please don't say i don't no lol
 
Mackay1011 said:
I don't actually understand anything you to have said hehe, i mean in the periodic table, every element or whatever you call them has a use, so what COULD 113 & 115 be used for? a ruff guesses are more then welcome, please don't say i don't no lol

Most likely these new nuclei are very short-lived. Moreover, it seems that just a few of them were actually prepared in the experiment. So, they are not useful for any practical purpose at this moment. Maybe in 50 years someone will find a method to stabilize these nuclei. Maybe then...
 
Thanks meo.. I don't want to go off topic to much but for example how would you stabilize an element? mix it with other atom, compounds or whatever lol, don't know much about this sort of stuff, but i do find it interesting
 
Mackay1011 said:
Thanks meo.. I don't want to go off topic to much but for example how would you stabilize an element? mix it with other atom, compounds or whatever lol, don't know much about this sort of stuff, but i do find it interesting

I don't know. Currently there is no way to do that. Who knows, maybe some stabilization methods will be invented in 50 years. Without such a stabilization, there is no way to use these elements in practical life.
 
It does not seem likely to me that any time in the near future, anybody can even give sens to the concept of "stabilizing an element". You would need to change the potential, the forces, which would drastically affect the nucleus structure, thus probably changing the electronic structure as well, and eventually getting different chemical properties. My point is that, if you somehow "stabilize" an unstable element, can you still call it the same name ? It would be very different from the original one.
 
  • #10
Norman said:
You may be interested in this link Mackay1011:

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Uuo/key.html

According to that link [itex]^{293}_{118}Uuo[/itex] decays via alpha emission in about one tenth of a millisecond. ([itex]10^{-4}[/itex] seconds)


Decays? so its un-usable when its decayed, and it decays in 1 tenth of a millisecond, how will scientists be able to conduct any kind of experiment on it?
 
  • #11
You do it very quickly! :biggrin:

Seriously, though, high-energy particle physicists also do experiments involving very short-lived particles. Basically, you don't study the particle directly while it is in flight. Instead, you study it by way of its decay products, by applying various conservation laws to deduce its properties.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
humanino said:
Others might feel differently, but my opinion is that the search for super heavy elements is not about chemistry or technology, at least not now, it is about understanding the nuclei structures, binding potentials, ... test the models somehow.
That's exactly the case.

Transuranics heavier than Cm do not have long half-lives and therefore are of use only as humanino stated - in understanding nuclear physics and nuclear stability. The hope had been to find stable isotopes, i.e. isotopes with half-lives on the order of centuries, millenia or longer.

Cm-247 has a half-life of ~16 million years, and is one of the more stable transuranics. However, the transuranics have significant radiotoxicity, so their applications are extremely limited. They are also very expensive!

Heavy elements are 'heavy' so they have no practical use for most material applications. They are a potential energy storage system, but creating, storing and using them is rather impractical because of the cost and the fact that they have short half-lives. There are much better (and much less expensive) ways to store or produce energy.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
About The Cost

im a high school student, and I am doing a report on the discovery of element 113 and 115, can some1 tell me the cost of this discovery??thnx,please send me a pm if you know.:smile:
 
  • #14
  • #15
I remember reading somewhere, or hearing from someone that element 117 is supposedly supposed to be stable enough for us to be able to do something with it, but we havn't been able to get anything that will decay into making it yet. \

Am i right?
 
  • #16
Planckium, Feynmanium, Darwinium, Newtonium, Lavoisium or Diracium seem likely candidates for names if you ask me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K