New Elements 115 & 113 Discovered: A Superheavy Report

[dlgoff]

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/7846474.htm
A team of Russian and American scientists will report today that they have created two new chemical elements, called superheavies because of their enormous atomic mass. The discoveries fill a gap at the furthest edge of the periodic table and hint strongly at a weird landscape of undiscovered elements beyond.

For those interested.

 

[jimmy p]

I knew that they had gone up to 109...unnilnonium or something, so what have they named these elements?

 

[wasteofo2]

According to a February 1, 2004 New York Times article, 113 is "Ununtrium" and 115 is "Ununpentium"

 

[dlgoff]

wasteofo2,

Yes, but I think the “Un” will be replaced with a name. Probably one in recognition for the discoverers.

regards

 

[Life]

Hope they're sure ...

I'm pretty hesitant to include this on my Periodic Table as of yet, since a similar discovery with elements 116 and 118 was made in June 1999, but was then retracted in July 2001.

As for the element names, the systematic names (i.e. Unununium, Ununbium, etc.) for elements greater than 110 will be used until the approval of trivial names by the IUPAC.

 

[dlgoff]

by Life
As for the element names, the systematic names (i.e. Unununium, Ununbium, etc.) for elements greater than 110 will be used until the approval of trivial names by the IUPAC.

Thanks for clarifying.

Regards

 

[zoobyshoe]

That info about the retraction raises the question of how they determine they have ever authentically created any of these lab-made elements that are said to decay so rapidly. If these atoms fall apart as soon as they're made why are they considered to really exist in the first place? How is anyone ever sure they remain stable for any length of time in excess of the time it takes for the decay process?

 

[pallidin]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
How is anyone ever sure they remain stable for any length of time in excess of the time it takes for the decay process?

Not to be overly corrective, but your statement is contraditive, as, once decay starts stability ends. In other words, ANY excess of time before the decay process indicates stability in that time.
But I suppose you question is "how" not why. So, in answer one should remember that "decay" results in specific emmissions whereas "stability" does not. Therefore, the lack of emmissions after creation and prior to decay establishes the time frame of stability.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by pallidin
So, in answer one should remember that "decay" results in specific emmissions...

So, you are saying that detection of specific emissions is what assures them that there was a period of stability? In other words they're sure these emissions never occur from non-stable interactions?

(Feel free to correct since I know precious little about the whole thing.)

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
That info about the retraction raises the question of how they determine they have ever authentically created any of these lab-made elements that are said to decay so rapidly. If these atoms fall apart as soon as they're made why are they considered to really exist in the first place? How is anyone ever sure they remain stable for any length of time in excess of the time it takes for the decay process?

the signature for a new element is very clear, it is not so hard to detect particles with very short lifetimes.

the problem with those elements that got retracted is that someone working on that experiment falsified the results.