Super Heavy New Element

mousepod · 06-11-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

The ubiquitous periodic table will soon have a new addition - the "super-heavy" element 112.
More than a decade after experiments first produced a single atom of the element, a team of German scientists has been credited with its discovery.

Element 112/Super-heavy : my new electronica band.

Alex · 06-11-2009, 09:18 AM

Not mentioned is one of the side reasons for hold up on recognition. Namely that Victor Ninov, a member of the team that first observed 112 was later implicated in producing fraudulent data at Berkeley leading to erroneous claims that the Berkeley team had observed 118 and 116. This caused them to look at the data on 112 again and they found altered records there as well though some observations withstood scrutiny.

But that put a bit more extra scrutiny into reproducing the observations. It was quite a little academic scandal at the time.

scaeagles · 06-11-2009, 09:35 AM

Great. Guess i have to buy a new chemistry book for my high schooler now.

Cadaverous Pallor · 06-11-2009, 03:25 PM

"This is heavy, Doc."

Alex · 06-11-2009, 03:28 PM

By the way, if anybody is interested in a recent history of the new elements search (last 40 years) and the methods (how, exactly do you know you created an element when there was only a few atoms at most and they survived for only milliseconds at best) then I recommend the Victor Ninov chapter of When Science Goes Wrong by Simon Levay.

blueerica · 06-12-2009, 07:51 AM

Haha, when I first saw the title of this thread last night, since mousepod posted it, I figured it was some new band.

Thanks for keepin' it unpredictable, pod. BTW, I think your thread title makes a delicious band name, as well.

innerSpaceman · 06-12-2009, 10:54 AM

I guess this makes me some sort of Luddite, but I disdain new additions to the periodic table in the same way I insist Pluto is still a planet, and the big dinosaur remains the Brontosaurus.

Besides, isn't it "cheating" to CREATE a new element? Why should it be in the Periodic Table if it does not exist in the natural universe?

Moonliner · 06-12-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Besides, isn't it "cheating" to CREATE a new element? Why should it be in the Periodic Table if it does not exist in the natural universe?

Ummm, exactly how old are you?

Quote:

No element with atomic number higher than 92 occurs naturally. These elements are produced artificially in nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.

Pirate Bill · 06-12-2009, 11:19 AM

Why don't we just get back to the basic 4 elements: air, earth, fire, and water.

blueerica · 06-12-2009, 11:32 AM

Hey now, they weren't called Earth, Wind & Fire... & Water.

Do you remember... the 21st night of September?

06-11-2009, 09:18 AM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Not mentioned is one of the side reasons for hold up on recognition. Namely that Victor Ninov, a member of the team that first observed 112 was later implicated in producing fraudulent data at Berkeley leading to erroneous claims that the Berkeley team had observed 118 and 116. This caused them to look at the data on 112 again and they found altered records there as well though some observations withstood scrutiny. But that put a bit more extra scrutiny into reproducing the observations. It was quite a little academic scandal at the time.
	Submit to Quotes

06-11-2009, 09:35 AM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Great. Guess i have to buy a new chemistry book for my high schooler now.
	Submit to Quotes

06-11-2009, 03:25 PM	#4
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	"This is heavy, Doc."
	Submit to Quotes

06-11-2009, 03:28 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	By the way, if anybody is interested in a recent history of the new elements search (last 40 years) and the methods (how, exactly do you know you created an element when there was only a few atoms at most and they survived for only milliseconds at best) then I recommend the Victor Ninov chapter of When Science Goes Wrong by Simon Levay.
	Submit to Quotes

06-12-2009, 07:51 AM	#6
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	Haha, when I first saw the title of this thread last night, since mousepod posted it, I figured it was some new band. Thanks for keepin' it unpredictable, pod. BTW, I think your thread title makes a delicious band name, as well. __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me
	Submit to Quotes

06-12-2009, 10:54 AM	#7
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I guess this makes me some sort of Luddite, but I disdain new additions to the periodic table in the same way I insist Pluto is still a planet, and the big dinosaur remains the Brontosaurus. Besides, isn't it "cheating" to CREATE a new element? Why should it be in the Periodic Table if it does not exist in the natural universe?
	Submit to Quotes

06-12-2009, 11:19 AM	#9
Pirate Bill Quality since 1973 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Right here Posts: 473	Why don't we just get back to the basic 4 elements: air, earth, fire, and water.
	Submit to Quotes

06-12-2009, 11:32 AM	#10
blueerica Nueve Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,497	Hey now, they weren't called Earth, Wind & Fire... & Water. Do you remember... the 21st night of September? __________________ Tomorrow is the day for you and me
	Submit to Quotes