HELP!!Does anybody know anything about modern materials or new elements?
Raúl Cicero
Does anybody know anything about modern materials or new elements?
I´m a student and my chemistry teacher signed me an investigation about
modern materials or new elements or stuff like that...i have tried to
find in loots of books but i cant find any information, if anyone can
help me with this, please help me!!, like giving adresses or sending me
an email with the information.Please send me all your coments about this
topic...thanks for all.
Raúl Cicero
Roy Bossingham
I'll give a couple of Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Lab references since I happen
to work there in the Nucl. Sci. Div., but don't have anything to do with the
new
element work.
www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/element-107-chem.html
www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/elements-116-118.html
Of course, it depends what you call "new;" there have been several elements
produced in the last few years that probably aren't on your copy of the
periodic table, yet. (e.g., Seaborgium=element 106). See, for example,
references from
www.chemdex.org/chemdex/periodic-tables.html
New materials, on the other hand...too broad to even touch that one here;
could
be superalloys; composites; cermets; ceramics; plastics; Buckminsterfullium.
Lots of exciting stuff...
Roy
Raúl Cicero wrote in message <382B2E12...@academ01.mty.itesm.mx>...
Mark Kinsler
>modern materials or new elements or stuff like that...i have tried to
>find in loots of books but i cant find any information, if anyone can
>help me with this, please help me!!,
You'd better define your project a bit better. Modern materials, e.g.
carbon fibers, have nothing much to do with new elements. New elements
are typically additions to the group of artificially-transmuted
radioactive elements at the end of the periodic table. They're of
interest to chemists, but we cannot build anything out of them.
Mark Kinsler
--
............................................................................
114 Columbia Ave. Athens, Ohio USA 45701 voice740.594.3737 fax740.592.3059
Home of the "How Things Work" engineering program for adults and kids.
See http://www.frognet.net/~kinsler
Mark Kinsler
Mark Kinsler
Mark Kinsler
>carbon fibers, have nothing much to do with new elements. New elements
>are typically additions to the group of artificially-transmuted
>radioactive elements at the end of the periodic table. They're of
>interest to chemists, but we cannot build anything out of them.
And I'd probably say it again.
I'm clearly having browser problems.
M Kinsler
Shiguang
in the predict table.
What does it take to make a new element?
Is it possible to add a single proton to the element with the most protons
to form a new element?
Has that been done before? If not when was the last element found?
Pardon my ignorance
Thanks
Gabriel
Mark Kinsler <kin...@frognet.net> wrote in article
<ifJW3.67341$23.27...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>...
> >I´m a student and my chemistry teacher signed me an investigation about
> >modern materials or new elements or stuff like that...i have tried to
> >find in loots of books but i cant find any information, if anyone can
> >help me with this, please help me!!,
>
> You'd better define your project a bit better. Modern materials, e.g.
> carbon fibers, have nothing much to do with new elements. New elements
> are typically additions to the group of artificially-transmuted
> radioactive elements at the end of the periodic table. They're of
> interest to chemists, but we cannot build anything out of them.
>
> Mark Kinsler
Roy Bossingham
>Shiguang <shig...@mbox5.singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>>I was wondering if there are any other elements found besides those
already
>>in the predict table.
<snip>
>>What does it take to make a new element?
>Typically, a particle accelerator. A big particle accelerator.
Actually, a *little* accelerator, such as the 88" cyclotron at Berkeley Lab;
it's not hard to supply enough energy for another nucleus to overcome the
nuclear Coulomb barrier; the problem is that, if nuclei bind, energy is
released and the new, heavy nucleus tends to disintegrate.
>>Is it possible to add a single proton to the element with the most protons
>>to form a new element?
>I think so.
Neutrons can often be added, and these can decay to a proton
(+electron+anti-neutrino) to increase the nuclear charge. This is how
plutonium-239 is produced from uranium-238 in a nuclear reactor, for
example.
>If not when was the last element found?
>I think that most of the elements in that last row of the periodic table
>are man-made. Plutonium, californium, einsteinium, fermium, and the
>others were artificially produced, but they are still elements.
Heavier elements, in the range of the "island of stability" have been
produced
recently; others are likely to follow. See:
www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/elements-116-118.html
(Understand, though, that one is talking about single, or a few, short-lived
nuclei for the recently produced elements, rather than macroscopic
quantities; in most cases, they
decay before even becoming neutral atoms --- so chemical studies may not be
possible in many cases.
Roy
Mark Kinsler
>I was wondering if there are any other elements found besides those already
>in the predict table.
The correct name is the _periodic_ table. And because of its periodic
structure, we can predict the structure of each element and find it. This
work was done by Mendeleev, and that's whose work you should read. As
such, we can be fairly confident that we've discovered all of the
elements.
>What does it take to make a new element?
Typically, a particle accelerator. A big particle accelerator.
>Is it possible to add a single proton to the element with the most protons
>to form a new element?
I think so.
>Has that been done before?
Yup.
If not when was the last element found?
I think that most of the elements in that last row of the periodic table
are man-made. Plutonium, californium, einsteinium, fermium, and the
others were artificially produced, but they are still elements.
I think any introductory college chemistry book will discuss the subject
quite thoroughly.
@home Tom Davidson
Shiguang wrote in message <01bf2f54$6b712a00$LocalHost@default>...
>I was wondering if there are any other elements found besides those already
>in the predict table.
Of course.
>What does it take to make a new element?
Element 114 was made by shooting atoms of calcium-48 into a target of
plutonium-244,
>Is it possible to add a single proton to the element with the most protons
>to form a new element?
If you are quick about it, and make the raw material under a proton gun.
It's easier to use a stabler target and a bigger "gun."
>Has that been done before? If not when was the last element found?
January of this year Science reported the formation of element 114:
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.412.html
David Gossman
Roy Bossingham wrote:
>
> Mark Kinsler wrote in message ...
> >Shiguang <shig...@mbox5.singnet.com.sg> wrote:
> >>I was wondering if there are any other elements found besides those
> already
> >>in the predict table.
>
> <snip>
> >>What does it take to make a new element?
> >Typically, a particle accelerator. A big particle accelerator.
>
> Actually, a *little* accelerator, such as the 88" cyclotron at Berkeley Lab;
> it's not hard to supply enough energy for another nucleus to overcome the
> nuclear Coulomb barrier; the problem is that, if nuclei bind, energy is
> released and the new, heavy nucleus tends to disintegrate.
>
> >>Is it possible to add a single proton to the element with the most protons
> >>to form a new element?
> >I think so.
> Neutrons can often be added, and these can decay to a proton
> (+electron+anti-neutrino) to increase the nuclear charge. This is how
> plutonium-239 is produced from uranium-238 in a nuclear reactor, for
> example.
>
> >If not when was the last element found?
> >I think that most of the elements in that last row of the periodic table
> >are man-made. Plutonium, californium, einsteinium, fermium, and the
> >others were artificially produced, but they are still elements.
>
> Heavier elements, in the range of the "island of stability" have been
> produced
> recently; others are likely to follow. See:
> www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/elements-116-118.html
> (Understand, though, that one is talking about single, or a few, short-lived
> nuclei for the recently produced elements, rather than macroscopic
> quantities; in most cases, they
> decay before even becoming neutral atoms --- so chemical studies may not be
> possible in many cases.
>
Its my understanding that in order to make "new elements" ie those in
the area of the "island of stability" a rather large cyclotron or
similar accelerator is required because the mass of the elements that
have to be accelerated is quite large. I seem to recall this being one
of the objectives of the 1200MeV machine at MSU, although I have not
heard of any results.
David Gossman
Roy Bossingham
>> >Shiguang <shig...@mbox5.singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >>What does it take to make a new element?
>> Mark Kinsler wrote in message ...
>> >Typically, a particle accelerator. A big particle accelerator.
>Roy Bossingham wrote:
>> Actually, a *little* accelerator, such as the 88" cyclotron at Berkeley
Lab;
>> it's not hard to supply enough energy for another nucleus to overcome the
>> nuclear Coulomb barrier; the problem is that, if nuclei bind, energy is
>> released and the new, heavy nucleus tends to disintegrate.
>Its my understanding that in order to make "new elements" ie those in
>the area of the "island of stability" a rather large cyclotron or
>similar accelerator is required because the mass of the elements that
>have to be accelerated is quite large. I seem to recall this being one
>of the objectives of the 1200MeV machine at MSU, although I have not
>heard of any results.
A rather modest machine like the Berkeley Lab 88" will work *provided* that
one strips enough electrons from the atom, so that the charge-to-mass ratio
is reasonably high; RF sources can ionize the atom before it is accelerated.
In the past, one had to settle
for low ionization states until one had accelerated it at least to a
velocity of order of the classical electron velocity in a shell---then one
could strip the electrons in that shell by passing the beam through a thin
stripper foil.
Whether one calls an 88" cyclotron small or not is a matter of viewpoint.
The basic machine is 1960-vintage, and, even then, it was smaller than the
184" syncho-cyclotron at Berkeley, and tiny compared to the old Berkeley
Bevatron (synchrontron) or Brookhaven AGS (synchrotron) of that era (and
microscopic compared to modern synchrotrons like the CERN SPS, Fermilab or
RHIC); but neither is it the sort of facility that many places can afford
and not the sort of thing to which many K-12 folks have access.
[However, the National Labs, including Berkeley, do have research programs
for high school teachers; if some ambitious high school chemistry/physics
teacher out there wants to spend a summer working there, it's probably
possible.] -- Roy