Chemistry 4 New Elements Named

[sataris]

Didn't see a thread for this but felt it deserved a thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ble-have-formal-names/?utm_term=.798f5f13f9c0

My favourite statistic for the difficulty of synthesising these elements is from Nihonium

Over a period of 9 years, the lab at RIKEN observed a grand total of

3 atoms

 

[GreyCrow]

From the official IUPAC announcement, the elements are:

• Nihonium (Nh) for Element 113.
• Moscovium (Mc) for Element 115.
• Tennessine (Ts) for Element 117.
• Oganesson (Og) for Element 118.

• 
  Three are named after the places where the scientists institution was based and Oganesson named after Yuri Oganesson a Nuclear Physics Professor

• 
  

• 
  

 

[sataris]

From the official IUPAC announcement, the elements are:

• Nihonium (Nh) for Element 113.
• Moscovium (Mc) for Element 115.
• Tennessine (Ts) for Element 117.
• Oganesson (Og) for Element 118.

• 
  Three are named after the places where the scientists institution was based and Oganesson named after Yuri Oganesson a Nuclear Physics Professor

• 
  

Pretty certain the dude's name is Oganessian.

The element is oganesson so it ends with on like the other noble gases (halogens?)

 

[Pie eyed]

Pieeyedium exhibits the properties of a liquid going in and a gas going out, absolutely not a noble gas either.

Only one atom has ever been observed, in Melbourne Australia, annually, generally around Anzac day.

 

[RunningBounce]

Pretty certain the dude's name is Oganessian.

The element is oganesson so it ends with on like the other noble gases (halogens?)

Yep, the naming convention of noble gases is to end with "on".

The halogens are column 1 - fluorine, chlorine, etc.

 

[Genesis67]

Pieeyedium exhibits the properties of a liquid going in and a gas going out, absolutely not a noble gas either.

Only one atom has ever been observed, in Melbourne Australia, annually, generally around Anzac day.

Quality post. Massively underrated.

 

[grumbleguts]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this naming elements thing.

If we'd gone with the original names Ununoctium, we'd know it's number and therefore the fact that it is a chemically inert element.

If we named magnesium Unbium, we'd know it was element number 12 and, by corollary, everything associated with that fact. (divalent cation, 3s2 configuration etc. From magnesium we get absolutely nothing. From a systematic nomenclature, we have the entirety of the periodic table learnt and understood in half the time.

unium, bium, trium, quadium, pentium, hexium, octium, nonium, unnilium, ununium, unbium, untrium, etc...

 

[GreyCrow]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this naming elements thing.

If we'd gone with the original names Ununoctium, we'd know it's number and therefore the fact that it is a chemically inert element.

If we named magnesium Unbium, we'd know it was element number 12 and, by corollary, everything associated with that fact. (divalent cation, 3s2 configuration etc. From magnesium we get absolutely nothing. From a systematic nomenclature, we have the entirety of the periodic table learnt and understood in half the time.

unium, bium, trium, quadium, pentium, hexium, octium, nonium, unnilium, ununium, unbium, untrium, etc...

Missed septium

I go the other way. They should be continue to be named after the most noted finder or the area etc. Then we would learn about the scientist etc

 

[grumbleguts]

You can learn about the scientists, that's called history, it's a great subject, or you can learn about the elements and how they exchange valence electrons, that's called chemistry, one of them is made a great deal easier with a systematic nomenclature system, and the other is exactly the same in its facility, having an element named after them or not having an element named after them makes no difference to what they have achieved.

Not that I expect it to happen, I gave a plenary lecture at a oceanic chemistry conference once where I talked about this, and was howled down with the most ridiculous rhetoric that went something like this:

I had to learn their damn names so can the kids.

 

[Werewolf]

My favourite statistic for the difficulty of synthesising these elements is from Nihonium

Over a period of 9 years, the lab at RIKEN observed a grand total of

3 atoms

The main problem with creating superheavy elements is getting enough neutrons into the atom you're trying to form.

Light elements have roughly equal numbers of protons and neutrons, but heavier elements require additional neutrons to reduce the proton repulsion. The ratio of neutrons to protons increases as atoms become heavier. Some examples:

Calcium-40 = 1:1, Yttrium-89 = 1.28:1, Iodine-127 = 1.40:1 and Lead-208 (the heaviest stable nucleus) = 1.54:1

All elements heavier than lead are radioactive and all elements heavier than uranium are artificial. The most stable superheavy isotopes are usually the ones with the most neutrons, unfortunately smashing two lighter atoms together produces a heavy atom with a deficit of neutrons. Simultaneously adding extra neutrons isn't feasible because the cross sections are so tiny.

E.g. Fl-290 is the heaviest and most stable known isotope of Flerovium, but Fl-298 is predicted to have a longer half life.

Some physicists have predicted an "Island of stability" - relatively stable super-heavy elements with "magic numbers" of protons and neutrons, but these cannot be made with current technology because of the neutron deficit problem.

 

[Werewolf]

 

[Snake_Baker]

The halogens are column 1 - fluorine, chlorine, etc.

Huh?